Why can't Puma be like Tiger?

**JBult** · 04-09-2002, 01:51 PM

Look at Tiger's uptime and load

http://tiger.nocdns.com/

then, look at Puma's uptime and load averages

http://puma.nocdns.com/

The longest I have seen Puma up for is 20 days. That doesn't even come close to the 75 days Tiger has under it's belt.

**tekygonnabe** · 04-09-2002, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by JBult
Look at Tiger's uptime and load

http://tiger.nocdns.com/

then, look at Puma's uptime and load averages

http://puma.nocdns.com/

The longest I have seen Puma up for is 20 days. That doesn't even come close to the 75 days Tiger has under it's belt.

SHHHHHHHH !!!!!

**lookout** · 04-09-2002, 03:17 PM

As a fellow Puma resident, I feel your pain. :sick::sick::sick:

It's better than it was last month though, so I can tell Aletia is definitely working on rooting out the problems and abusers. Part of it is undoubtedly the result of their permissive use policies.

Perhaps it may have something to do with the disk allocations and available free space. My quick comparison showed Tiger with nearly twice the capacity of Puma in all folders except the

backup folder (shouldn't that be stored offsite anyway?) Of course, that may mean Tiger may eventually be bogged down with even more sites than our current home.

Tiger also has a disk swap file that's twice the size of Puma's, which probably doesn't make much difference in performance at that capacity. But Tiger's 2 SCSI hard drives vs. Puma's mix of IDE and SCSI might make a difference. From my experience in I.T, SCSI devices don't tax system resources as much.

**clio** · 04-09-2002, 03:24 PM

Puma's old and Tiger's relatively new. Unfortunately older servers experience problems with use and with time, same as computers. scorpion had major problems too.

but now we're moving to chick i believe..

**Julian Muñoz** · 04-09-2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by tekygonnabe

SHHHHHHHH !!!!!

ROLF hehee....

**lookout** · 04-09-2002, 04:45 PM

>Puma's old and Tiger's relatively new.

Puma can't be that much older, if one compares the components listed on the server pages. Do you have inside info, Clio?

They are both reported as dual 1 GB P3s after all (quite possibly the server aimed Xeon processor), which means they aren't the latest, but they're hardly ancient. Of course, it may be that server statistics pages are misreporting the processor types and speeds. 999 MHz PIIIs may be the fastest the statistics can report.

More often than not, a computer will develop problems due to program and driver updates, not so much from age of the machine itself. Incompatiable DLLs and "helper" programs that start up every time the machine boots are the biggest culprits. Seems like every program and driver you install wants to add some troublemaking little background program to your startup. Hardware failures do occur, but not as often as you might think.

**clio** · 04-09-2002, 05:59 PM

no, i judge by the time they appear.
when i joined last year, tiger was not in existence i believe. puma was. but that's just according to my memory, i may be quite wrong.

look at chick's parts, which are relatively new. do they look like they're newer? (i don't know much about hardware)

**wrickardo** · 04-09-2002, 06:39 PM

im on tiger ! tiger rules ! jejeje

no problems at all, the best server EEEJA !

**tekygonnabe** · 04-09-2002, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by lookout
>Puma's old and Tiger's relatively new.

You do realize that NEW in the server sense, IS VERY relative to number of users on that server.... moreso than physical age of the machine. (though this does make a difference)
Parts wear out, just like on your vehicle! They have to be maintained.
Compare servers/home PC's to an ordinary passenger car/NASCAR

The 2 have some similar characteristics...
but one REQUIRES wayyyyy more frequent (costly) maintance & repairs

After saying all that it is only a matter of time before TIGER begins to have its fair share of trouble as well!

I was just gonna "ride the wave!!!" (sighs)

Wasnt going to boast much about up time for another month or longer... YA KNOW save it for the smear campaigns... which will surely wage on long after we disappear from this venue

**lookout** · 04-09-2002, 09:41 PM

Well Clio, going solely by the server statistics page, Chick is reporting a slightly slower dual processors at 933 MHz, which makes it appear even older than either Puma or Tiger. But having seen my share of diagnostic programs, it's quite possible the chip and speed are not being reported correctly. One learns to view the results with some suspicion.

You're right in that Tiger seems to have appeared after Puma, but the server statistics make them appear similarly equipped. Could be some vast differences that aren't getting reported though.

------

Some good things about Chick, IMHO:
It is entirely SCSI based, which is entirely appropriate for servers and workstation class machines.

It has a little more physical memory (RAM) at 1 GB. Puma and Tiger both report back a rather weird number of 879 MB.

It still has plenty of free capacity on the hard disks, and likely has fewer accounts right now.

------

I'm not sure how to interpret Chick's Disk Swap space numbers. I believe they represent virtual memory, a file on the hard disk that acts like physical memory, only much slower. It was reporting 0% capacity when I looked, with both free and used numbers being larger than the reported overall size. That doesn't seem right and I suspect it either too low or too high for the server statistics software to report properly. It would be good if it's not being used much, since that would mean the machine has enough physical memory (RAM) to perform most of its operations without paging out to the hard disk much. Performance heads south quickly when a machine runs out of RAM, and systems often become unstable if in that state for long (forcing reboots to reset the memory).

As for tekygonnabe's NASCAR / server analogy, there's some truth in that obviously. But I personally haven't found the wear out factor as significant as one might expect even with heavy server use. Of course, the servers I support are generally built as such (not a cheap PC clone), either from major manufacturers like Compaq or HP ( :weyes: read somewhat proprietary architecture), or built from scratch using off the shelf parts, with server quality, reliability, and performance in mind. From the information shown on the server statistics pages, it looks like Aletia tries to do this as well, using mostly brand name, generally respected components in their machines.

As a technically inclined observer from afar, I suspect Puma's problems are the result of some rogue script or a software upgrade, rather than an actual hardware issue. If it's a user related script, it will most likely follow them if they request a move elsewhere.

It takes time to diagnose these things, especially when the problems are as intermittent as they have been here. It's especially tricky to do so in a networked environment where uptime is a major concern. It almost always entails a couple of visit to Computer Hell, much like a simple home repair often entails multiple visits to the hardware store.

**tekygonnabe** · 04-09-2002, 09:55 PM

Thanks for the insights lookout!

**lookout** · 04-09-2002, 10:30 PM

My pleasure, tekygonnabe!

**lookout** · 04-10-2002, 01:23 AM

They must be doing something, since the load averages have dropped significantly from their peaks during the last couple of months. They're still fairly high though, and the reboots are happening with alarming frequency for a server. They still can claim more than 99% uptime however; that's only 14.5 minutes of downtime a day. Of course when the loads are so high, the server is effectively down to anyone out there without a really speedy connection.

Scorpion went nuts last Fall before many of us were moved over to Puma. A few long term Puma residents have been saying that's when all the problems began.

(Battle-scarred refugees never seem welcome anywhere, do they?) I began noticing a big increase in the load averages a couple of months later myself. It's possible that someone is seriously abusing our shared environment, but it is also possible this is the result of a software "upgrade".

No matter what it is, I'm confident Aletia is trying to root out the problem with the resources they have available. That's probably not enough for some, who expect a higher level of performance for their money. They may be served better elsewhere, although it seems all web hosting companies have their difficulties from time to time. Tough to find a good one with staying power. Aside from their recent troubles, I think you may find Aletia better than most with generous policies and relatively accessible online support.

Some shopping around might be eye opening. Make sure to take a good look at a potential hosting company's technical support section and terms of use before jumping ship. Also check their refund policy. Caveat emptor and carpe diem!

**tekygonnabe** · 04-10-2002, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by aspire

It seems Aletia has been ignoring the problems with Puma for 4 maybe 5 months now. They know it's bad, we know it's bad, but they're not doing much to remedy the problems.

TROLL

**twcinpa** · 04-10-2002, 07:33 AM

Hi Lookout,

I appreciate your discussion above.

Any insight into 2 home directories on Chick? I'm guessing it's an effort to isolate potential problems, but you seem to have quite a bit more knowledge in this area than I.

Thanks,

Tom