WHEN will PPRUNE get a decent server?
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not bitter CB - no time for that. Just very disappointed that over 5 years none of the IT pro's here or on the Australian forums would give PPRuNers an independent and unbiased indication of the scale we're working on. Not even a comparison such as 400 gigs of bandwidth is equivalent to a company of X size/ brand recognition and would be operated by Y number of employees.
Ah bookworm, you hit the nail right on the head. The great server that is to come will provide a minor Charles Atlas course [2 by 2.5 gig CPU's and fastrer scsi disks] but the bandwidth is the killer that the non IT types can't imagine or conceive. That's the reason for the request for some unbiased third party comparisons so they can get a handle on why performance is a struggle both technically and financially.
Regards,
Rob
Ah bookworm, you hit the nail right on the head. The great server that is to come will provide a minor Charles Atlas course [2 by 2.5 gig CPU's and fastrer scsi disks] but the bandwidth is the killer that the non IT types can't imagine or conceive. That's the reason for the request for some unbiased third party comparisons so they can get a handle on why performance is a struggle both technically and financially.
Regards,
Rob
Northern Monkey
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Newcastle, England
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
400Gb per month is sooooo much bandwith, however i cannot see any reason to need a dedicated T1 (or E1 as they are in europe) for your internet access. A co-located server an a large hosting centre would probably bet fit youre needs, as bandwith could burst at peak times (ie lunch time), as a server of that spec is capable of quite a high data throughput,well in excess of the 2.0 Mb of a dedicated E1 circuit
As an example of price, UK2 (www.uk2.net) cost their bandwith at 99p per Gb, which is about £5k/yr + cost of server location of about £1k/yr, + cost of backup (sorry i cant estimate a price for that)
However, I do think that there would be a market for pprune subscription, where by one could pay a fixed monthly cost to have access to a less utilised server, and have less ads per page, and if possible, a low colour or text based version, of pprune, so i can read it more easly while at work
NB
As an example of price, UK2 (www.uk2.net) cost their bandwith at 99p per Gb, which is about £5k/yr + cost of server location of about £1k/yr, + cost of backup (sorry i cant estimate a price for that)
However, I do think that there would be a market for pprune subscription, where by one could pay a fixed monthly cost to have access to a less utilised server, and have less ads per page, and if possible, a low colour or text based version, of pprune, so i can read it more easly while at work
NB
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We reckon about £2k to buy the server, plus whatever the database is (I think I have seen from error messages that it's MySQL, which is cheap, but a grown-up DBMS on a 2 processor system, it would probably be another £2.5k)
Co-located hosting is definitely the way to go. We reckon that you will get 1/4 of a rack (usually the minimum) for £10-12k per annum with the service and bandwidth required. This would give you a 2Mb "average" but the possibility of "bursting" much higher, provided that it didn't happen too often.
We can pass on some quotes we got last year from a number of co-located people (we ended up with UUNet) if that helps.
Will
Co-located hosting is definitely the way to go. We reckon that you will get 1/4 of a rack (usually the minimum) for £10-12k per annum with the service and bandwidth required. This would give you a 2Mb "average" but the possibility of "bursting" much higher, provided that it didn't happen too often.
We can pass on some quotes we got last year from a number of co-located people (we ended up with UUNet) if that helps.
Will
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started this thread and said I wouldn't come back to it after the reaction my comment caused. I apologise for any offence caused; I simply assumed this is a commercial site supported by popup adverts. In light of the subsequent posts I can't resist making some technical points:
(1) On the assumption that one is after a non-profit discussion site for pilots, I have not seen anything yet ruling out Usenet for this. Lots of people have impressions of Usenet and most of them are well out of date. Open Usenet is free, comes with massive bandwidth (courtesy of warez and porn, the typical ISP's usenet feed is 50-100GB per day), is mostly free of spam in non-binary groups, is anonymous (short of a court order or a police request served on the ISP, and even then there are ways to thwart that), is very fast (worldwide propagation takes minutes), and most importantly is fast to use. Every other www-based discussion system involves a lot of time getting in and out of threads. There really are many people who could make a useful contribution who don't have the time.
(2) The server described here costs relative peanuts, as would a much more powerful one. But is the server the bottleneck?
(3) Where is the real bottleneck? Is it the database transaction time on the server, or is it the bandwidth to the ISP, or is it something else?
Someone mentioned 400 people online, but most of those are silent. They are reading or (very occassionally) writing and all that is client side activity.
If the bandwidth to the ISP is the problem, one could do what most chatrooms have been doing for years: have a client side program (Windows executable for most people, Java for the remainder) which implements the "discussion group" user interface and the data flowing over the internet would be just the changes. I haven't been to a chatroom for years (and if I was I wouldn't own up to it nowadays
) but this is very old stuff, and the speed increase is dramatic. The decrease in per-GB billing cost would be equally dramatic. But someone would have to write the software. I was writing that kind of software to implement remote terminals over a 1200baud modem link, with simple RLL compression on the data for good measure, in the 1980s, on 4MHz Z80s
(1) On the assumption that one is after a non-profit discussion site for pilots, I have not seen anything yet ruling out Usenet for this. Lots of people have impressions of Usenet and most of them are well out of date. Open Usenet is free, comes with massive bandwidth (courtesy of warez and porn, the typical ISP's usenet feed is 50-100GB per day), is mostly free of spam in non-binary groups, is anonymous (short of a court order or a police request served on the ISP, and even then there are ways to thwart that), is very fast (worldwide propagation takes minutes), and most importantly is fast to use. Every other www-based discussion system involves a lot of time getting in and out of threads. There really are many people who could make a useful contribution who don't have the time.
(2) The server described here costs relative peanuts, as would a much more powerful one. But is the server the bottleneck?
(3) Where is the real bottleneck? Is it the database transaction time on the server, or is it the bandwidth to the ISP, or is it something else?
Someone mentioned 400 people online, but most of those are silent. They are reading or (very occassionally) writing and all that is client side activity.
If the bandwidth to the ISP is the problem, one could do what most chatrooms have been doing for years: have a client side program (Windows executable for most people, Java for the remainder) which implements the "discussion group" user interface and the data flowing over the internet would be just the changes. I haven't been to a chatroom for years (and if I was I wouldn't own up to it nowadays
) but this is very old stuff, and the speed increase is dramatic. The decrease in per-GB billing cost would be equally dramatic. But someone would have to write the software. I was writing that kind of software to implement remote terminals over a 1200baud modem link, with simple RLL compression on the data for good measure, in the 1980s, on 4MHz Z80s
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not even a comparison such as 400 gigs of bandwidth is equivalent to a company of X size/ brand recognition and would be operated by Y number of employees.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not completely independent, because I am in discussions with Rob about helping out with the hosting, but anyway...
A £2K server might have the "headline" spec, but one with large processor caches, SCSI disks, a hardware raid controller, dual power suppliers, dual network cards etc would likely cost double that.
Co-location is much cheaper than having someone else manage the server, but at many places you get some rack space, power and an Internet connection. As well as configuring the hardware, the operating system, the database and the application you have to deal with firewalling, backups, possibly DoS attacks etc. So "raw" co-location isn't for the faint hearted. Then you might want to consider having a standby machine available, not to mention some spare parts. None of this matters much if you don't care if your server is down for a few days if something goes wrong. Cabinet space (with generator and battery backed power, plus air-conditioning) is fairly cheap these days and a couple of servers, a network switch, a firewall, some kind of backup device and a spare server isn't going to cost much. A 1/4 cabinet is fine if physical security isn't a big concern - perhaps a couple of hundred pounds a month.
Bandwidth in small quantities (a single T1 is small in these terms) at a top-flight (no pun intended) UK co-location facility could cost anything between 150 and 500 per Mbs per month. Resellers would likely charge at the upper end of this scale.
Add the cost of the expertise to keep all this stuff up and running, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (i.e. at least two people who know what they're doing) with realtime monitoring, regular backups, etc.
We charge about £2-3,000 per month for hosting this type of application. We have commercial clients that do just that. How many clients do we have that are companies that run free services? None.
A £2K server might have the "headline" spec, but one with large processor caches, SCSI disks, a hardware raid controller, dual power suppliers, dual network cards etc would likely cost double that.
Co-location is much cheaper than having someone else manage the server, but at many places you get some rack space, power and an Internet connection. As well as configuring the hardware, the operating system, the database and the application you have to deal with firewalling, backups, possibly DoS attacks etc. So "raw" co-location isn't for the faint hearted. Then you might want to consider having a standby machine available, not to mention some spare parts. None of this matters much if you don't care if your server is down for a few days if something goes wrong. Cabinet space (with generator and battery backed power, plus air-conditioning) is fairly cheap these days and a couple of servers, a network switch, a firewall, some kind of backup device and a spare server isn't going to cost much. A 1/4 cabinet is fine if physical security isn't a big concern - perhaps a couple of hundred pounds a month.
Bandwidth in small quantities (a single T1 is small in these terms) at a top-flight (no pun intended) UK co-location facility could cost anything between 150 and 500 per Mbs per month. Resellers would likely charge at the upper end of this scale.
Add the cost of the expertise to keep all this stuff up and running, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (i.e. at least two people who know what they're doing) with realtime monitoring, regular backups, etc.
We charge about £2-3,000 per month for hosting this type of application. We have commercial clients that do just that. How many clients do we have that are companies that run free services? None.
Last edited by drauk; 15th Jan 2004 at 04:52.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not even a comparison such as 400 gigs of bandwidth is equivalent to a company of X size/ brand recognition and would be operated by Y number of employees.
[Edited to correct arithmetic.]
Last edited by Gertrude the Wombat; 15th Jan 2004 at 05:34.
aka Capt PPRuNe
...and don't forget that all this started as a joke when Demon Internet gave me 5Mb of free webspace to play with all those years ago. Just noticed this thread and have to explain that PPRuNe has had to become a business because of tax purposes. It's all a bit Catch 22'ish. As demand grew so did the need for server capacity. As we grew, advertisers started offering dosh to reach our audience and we needed the dosh to fund the growth.
Whilst PPRuNe is run as a business, all that means is that I pay someone to 'manage' the daily stuff of dealing with the bank, the the accountant and the taxman. I also employ someone to manage the advertising administration and that's about it. Oh, and the lawyer too.
As I'm cr@p at business and have very little inclination to do an office job, I spend my spare time monitoring the content of PPRuNe and making any strategic decisions as required. The rest of the time I sleep and work the main job which is in the pointy bit of a B737.As for a server and all the other suggestions, well, it's really a case of getting the best value for the money. You can try and explain untill you are blue in the face but I just want a fast, multi processor server with a fast, optimised sql database and a nifty front end for the users. If anyone can offer top end, high speed server with the necessary bandwidth availability at a price that is affordable then I'm ready to talk.
Actually, it's closer to 500Gb a month bandwidth now!
Demographically, I can access stats based on people who have signed up to the PPRuNe Pilot Email which is run by third party Everyone.net. There are just over 19,000 people registered for that service now. I then transpose those figures to the membership here to get a rough idea. Needless to say, I think it is quite good but I'm prepared to defer to someone with real knowledge of what it all means. Here are the stats for the PPRuNe Pilot Email from just over a year ago:
Break Down By Industry:
banking/finance/real estate: 750
business supplies or services: 1667
computer-related hardware: 210
computer-related internet: 242
computer-related is, mis, dp: 282
computer-related software: 339
consumer retail/wholesale: 387
education, research: 1300
engineering/construction: 1730
entertainment/media/publishing:494
government: 2421
hospitality- travel/accommodations: 5788
legal services: 364
manufacturing/distribution: 828
medical/health services: 545
nonprofit/membership organizations: 409
other: 1
Total 17757
Break Down By Occupation:
academic/educator: 451
clerical/administrative: 264
college/graduate student: 1157
computer technical/engineering: 682
executive/managerial: 2649
homemaker: 105
k-12 student: 233
other technical/engineering: 1690
professional- doctor, lawyer, etc.: 6718
retired: 824
sales/marketing: 393
self-employed/own company: 756
service/customer support: 829
tradesman/craftsman: 369
unemployed, looking for work: 637
Total 17757
Break Down By Income:
no income: 1347
under 20,000 usd: 1246
20,000 - 34,999 usd: 1593
35,000 - 49,999 usd: 1716
50,000 - 74,999 usd: 2085
75,000 - 99,999 usd: 1484
100,000 - 149,999 usd: 1280
over 150,000 usd: 1137
unspecified: 5868
null: 1
Total 17757
Break Down By Gender:
female: 1682
male: 16075
Total 17757
Break Down By Age:
13 and under: 5
14 - 16: 155
17 - 18: 203
19 - 21: 549
22 - 25: 1656
26 - 35: 5535
36 - 45: 4587
46 - 55: 3085
56 - 65: 1374
66 - 75: 339
76 - 85: 94
86 and over: 153
Total 17735
Go figure!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Danny,
Assuming that all the unspecified ones are too rich to admit their earnings, one can deduct that less than 10% earns $20k or below.
Would have thought therefore that raising some cash for an upgrade should be within reach.
I know absolutely nuffink about computers and the options for upgrades/costs but do know that I have not signed up and paid for a personal title because the 'donation' wooliness is not something I feel comfortable with.
A clear: 'If you want service X you have to pay Y' would make it a lot easier to make a judgement call about perceived value.
Suspect I am not the only one.
Like PPRuNe, would like it better if it was quicker!
FD
PS: Can you tell me why I do not get the option to do a poll when I post a new topic?
Assuming that all the unspecified ones are too rich to admit their earnings, one can deduct that less than 10% earns $20k or below.
Would have thought therefore that raising some cash for an upgrade should be within reach.
I know absolutely nuffink about computers and the options for upgrades/costs but do know that I have not signed up and paid for a personal title because the 'donation' wooliness is not something I feel comfortable with.
A clear: 'If you want service X you have to pay Y' would make it a lot easier to make a judgement call about perceived value.
Suspect I am not the only one.
Like PPRuNe, would like it better if it was quicker!
FD
PS: Can you tell me why I do not get the option to do a poll when I post a new topic?
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback on the thread folks - a real pleasure to see so much positive effort being put into a quite justifiable gripe thread.
I'm just back in from an overnight middle eastern trip but I had managed to discuss some of your thoughts with Danny before leaving. Our respective posting times consistently show how we squeeze time into the site - yawn.
The IT folks have given us a lot to think about - a completely different strategy if you like for providing the site for you. The server has been a regular crisis ever since we started and we just kept stepping up through shared servers until we ended up with our own. There have also been times when we've popped ads on a seperate server to offload the main one. It's been a constant diet of growing pains.
At last you at least have some idea of the scale and costs we face - not to ask you for money but explain the periods of poor service while we raise the funds for each upgrade. We aren't corporate but I think the professionals have managed to indicate we really are facing the costs and decisions that a significant company faces. And as drauk points out so succinctly he doesn't know anyone working on this scale providing a free service.
And finally sleep beckons, well fleetingly now that Danny has let me find out the hard way we're nudging the 500 gigabytes of bandwidth per month mark
Regards to all,
Rob Lloyd
PS Polling is switched off over most of the site at the moment Flyin'Dutch'. We consider it to be mainly eye candy and we play around with these things to see whats adds to load on the server and what's insignificant. There are hundreds of these bells, whistles and add ons that prettify a site with few (in our terms) visitors. A gruesome thread with huge numbers of requests to BRL and threats of violence might get it switched on for a trial period on this forum
I'm just back in from an overnight middle eastern trip but I had managed to discuss some of your thoughts with Danny before leaving. Our respective posting times consistently show how we squeeze time into the site - yawn.
The IT folks have given us a lot to think about - a completely different strategy if you like for providing the site for you. The server has been a regular crisis ever since we started and we just kept stepping up through shared servers until we ended up with our own. There have also been times when we've popped ads on a seperate server to offload the main one. It's been a constant diet of growing pains.
At last you at least have some idea of the scale and costs we face - not to ask you for money but explain the periods of poor service while we raise the funds for each upgrade. We aren't corporate but I think the professionals have managed to indicate we really are facing the costs and decisions that a significant company faces. And as drauk points out so succinctly he doesn't know anyone working on this scale providing a free service.
And finally sleep beckons, well fleetingly now that Danny has let me find out the hard way we're nudging the 500 gigabytes of bandwidth per month mark
Regards to all,
Rob Lloyd
PS Polling is switched off over most of the site at the moment Flyin'Dutch'. We consider it to be mainly eye candy and we play around with these things to see whats adds to load on the server and what's insignificant. There are hundreds of these bells, whistles and add ons that prettify a site with few (in our terms) visitors. A gruesome thread with huge numbers of requests to BRL and threats of violence might get it switched on for a trial period on this forum
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
I think that you are getting the message from the professionals here that co-hosting is the answer.
I completely understand your reticence about getting involved, it seemed to me to be a big step when first proposed by our Technical Director a while back, and if you don't know your way around the subject and spend most of your time pointing a 737 in the right direction I can see the temptation simply to build on what you've got.
BUT we've never looked back from the decision to co-host. It literally reduced our costs, cos we had been paying a fortune for a T1 trunk, and the co-hosting actually cost £4k a year less and we never have to worry about the line going down, because we are on the UUNet/3Com trunk...the biggest in the world.
As your own stats show, you have a wealth of IT pros on the site. I cannot believe that at least some of them wouldn't give you free advice and even physical help to get this going in a co-hosted site.
I would bite the bullet (but do not, I repeat not take it with you through security
) and start the process to investigate the co-hosting option.
...or ignore me...that's cool too..it's up to you mate...
Will
I think that you are getting the message from the professionals here that co-hosting is the answer.
I completely understand your reticence about getting involved, it seemed to me to be a big step when first proposed by our Technical Director a while back, and if you don't know your way around the subject and spend most of your time pointing a 737 in the right direction I can see the temptation simply to build on what you've got.
BUT we've never looked back from the decision to co-host. It literally reduced our costs, cos we had been paying a fortune for a T1 trunk, and the co-hosting actually cost £4k a year less and we never have to worry about the line going down, because we are on the UUNet/3Com trunk...the biggest in the world.
As your own stats show, you have a wealth of IT pros on the site. I cannot believe that at least some of them wouldn't give you free advice and even physical help to get this going in a co-hosted site.
I would bite the bullet (but do not, I repeat not take it with you through security
) and start the process to investigate the co-hosting option....or ignore me...that's cool too..it's up to you mate...
Will
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny and the PPRuNettes - I don't call myself an IT professional (I manage projects which are embedded systems running on a much smaller scale and take care of the housekeeping on the office Win2k / Exchange server) but have a reasonable appreciation of the subject.
One thought that always struck me as possibly offering a way of reducing the server / DB / bandwidth loading is to consider modifying the way of browsing the forums. I currently tend to go on to a forum and look at threads that have been updated since my last visit. If I read to the last post in a thread and then wish to go to the next updated thread, I tend to select the right yellow arrow at the bottom (or top) of the page. If this is a multi-page thread, then I have to select the last page of the thread (or find out which is the last post that I've already read), so this means that I have to view possibly 2 or more pages until I find the first new post on the thread. The alternative to this is to go to the forum summary page and then select the blue down arrow on that thread; again, this requires an additional page view before I can get to the post I want. Is it feasible for the right arrow to be modified to select the first updated post of the next thread chronologically (ie) to have the same function as the blue down arrow from the summary page? This way, when browsing through the threads, I would only require one page view to see the latest post. I'm finding it tricky to explain what I mean clearly without using graphics, but hope that you can fill in the gaps.
With any luck, if this were possible, it may reduce bandwidth / server requirements as a result of enabling more efficient browsing of the boards.
I trust that will be viewed as a constructive suggestion rather than just a whinge about an excellent free service!
One thought that always struck me as possibly offering a way of reducing the server / DB / bandwidth loading is to consider modifying the way of browsing the forums. I currently tend to go on to a forum and look at threads that have been updated since my last visit. If I read to the last post in a thread and then wish to go to the next updated thread, I tend to select the right yellow arrow at the bottom (or top) of the page. If this is a multi-page thread, then I have to select the last page of the thread (or find out which is the last post that I've already read), so this means that I have to view possibly 2 or more pages until I find the first new post on the thread. The alternative to this is to go to the forum summary page and then select the blue down arrow on that thread; again, this requires an additional page view before I can get to the post I want. Is it feasible for the right arrow to be modified to select the first updated post of the next thread chronologically (ie) to have the same function as the blue down arrow from the summary page? This way, when browsing through the threads, I would only require one page view to see the latest post. I'm finding it tricky to explain what I mean clearly without using graphics, but hope that you can fill in the gaps.
With any luck, if this were possible, it may reduce bandwidth / server requirements as a result of enabling more efficient browsing of the boards.
I trust that will be viewed as a constructive suggestion rather than just a whinge about an excellent free service!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting stats about the site here
Apparently we are ranked number 33,444
Thanks for all the hard work, if someone can supply a PPRuNe badge I would be happy to buy one.
Apparently we are ranked number 33,444
Thanks for all the hard work, if someone can supply a PPRuNe badge I would be happy to buy one.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually do this for a living. If Danny & Co want to PM I can talk them through the options (free of charge!).
There are better and cheaper ways of running the site that will give a major performance uplift.
I am however very greatful to have this site and live with this it's shortcoming's in return for the wealth of experiance it provides.
Long may it continue.
There are better and cheaper ways of running the site that will give a major performance uplift.
I am however very greatful to have this site and live with this it's shortcoming's in return for the wealth of experiance it provides.
Long may it continue.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks yet again for the comments from those in the industry.
I think all on the forum should have divined 2 or 3 things from the foregoing. We absolutely recognise the problems you're facing using the site, we are working on a radical overhaul and we have raised the funds now to actively improve things.
Additionally we are seriously looking at moving to this alternative way of hosting the site after all the advice we've received here, on the rotorheads forum and privately. As Danny's comments made clear we want to run PPRuNe for aviation people and we've been draggged kicking and screaming into doing it on a legal and commercial footing. We funded it with our after tax income from the day jobs for years but as you've now read we are simply too big for that due to demand. Bear in mind we've never advertised or issued a press release in the 8 years of running the site Therefore the word demand is both absolutely accurate and the curse we suffer
But now to the real reason for writing which has been triggered by the suggestions from Circuit Basher. What can we offer short term to alleviate the poor service?
I follow this forum very carefully simply because I'm a light aircraft man at heart. The Boeing supports my family, apart from me and the missus the oldest member of which is a Jodel I haven't seen the simplest suggestion of all which is to use a different internet browser. This can transform your viewing of the site, especially at peak times.
The majority of you use Internet Explorer and it doesn't support a feature called tabbed browsing. By switching to another, they're all free, you can have multiple pages loading while you're reading one thread. Finish what you are reading and select the next page you want. While that loads you click on the next tab and you've got a loaded page ready to read. Repeat across the site on different tabs until replete with your aviation fix.
This prescription for PPRuNE addicts is especially effective for those of you on dial up access or as we doctors refer to it. Lumbered by BTitis.
We work very hard to ensure that PPRuNe renders acceptably on any stable browser on all platforms - PC, Mac or unix. Therefore I'll bow out and ask our readers to suggest tabbed browsers for you to download or liberate from computer mag cover disks without any bias from us in the Towers. It really, really, really is worth it especially if you are on dial up.
Come on team - chip in with your recommendations for improving peoples' experience of the site while we crack on with world domination - err, getting the forums sorted
Regards again,
Rob Lloyd
I think all on the forum should have divined 2 or 3 things from the foregoing. We absolutely recognise the problems you're facing using the site, we are working on a radical overhaul and we have raised the funds now to actively improve things.
Additionally we are seriously looking at moving to this alternative way of hosting the site after all the advice we've received here, on the rotorheads forum and privately. As Danny's comments made clear we want to run PPRuNe for aviation people and we've been draggged kicking and screaming into doing it on a legal and commercial footing. We funded it with our after tax income from the day jobs for years but as you've now read we are simply too big for that due to demand. Bear in mind we've never advertised or issued a press release in the 8 years of running the site Therefore the word demand is both absolutely accurate and the curse we suffer
But now to the real reason for writing which has been triggered by the suggestions from Circuit Basher. What can we offer short term to alleviate the poor service?
I follow this forum very carefully simply because I'm a light aircraft man at heart. The Boeing supports my family, apart from me and the missus the oldest member of which is a Jodel
I haven't seen the simplest suggestion of all which is to use a different internet browser. This can transform your viewing of the site, especially at peak times.The majority of you use Internet Explorer and it doesn't support a feature called tabbed browsing. By switching to another, they're all free, you can have multiple pages loading while you're reading one thread. Finish what you are reading and select the next page you want. While that loads you click on the next tab and you've got a loaded page ready to read. Repeat across the site on different tabs until replete with your aviation fix.
This prescription for PPRuNE addicts is especially effective for those of you on dial up access or as we doctors refer to it. Lumbered by BTitis.
We work very hard to ensure that PPRuNe renders acceptably on any stable browser on all platforms - PC, Mac or unix. Therefore I'll bow out and ask our readers to suggest tabbed browsers for you to download or liberate from computer mag cover disks without any bias from us in the Towers. It really, really, really is worth it especially if you are on dial up.
Come on team - chip in with your recommendations for improving peoples' experience of the site while we crack on with world domination - err, getting the forums sorted
Regards again,
Rob Lloyd
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rob,
Interesting to read about "tabbed browsing" - I have to admit I hadn't come across that before.
But I achieve something very similar using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Instead of clicking on the link for a thread I want to read, I right-click on it, and choose "Open in new window". Then repeat for as many threads as necessary. Go away, have a cup of tea, and when you come back, all of the threads are loaded and ready for me to read! Hope someone else finds this technique useful. (But I would definitely second the calls for an alternative interface which is less, um, conspicuous at work! 
)
FFF
--------------
Interesting to read about "tabbed browsing" - I have to admit I hadn't come across that before.
But I achieve something very similar using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Instead of clicking on the link for a thread I want to read, I right-click on it, and choose "Open in new window". Then repeat for as many threads as necessary. Go away, have a cup of tea, and when you come back, all of the threads are loaded and ready for me to read!
Hope someone else finds this technique useful. (But I would definitely second the calls for an alternative interface which is less, um, conspicuous at work! )FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF - a tabbed browser does exactly what you're suggesting but without the mess!
Everything is in a single window with a line of captioned tabs across the top. Windows users will be used to seeing the same thing in the video display section of their control panel. Beautifully simple, intuitive and so, so easy to hide behind a convincing spreadsheet or other less career limiting workpiece
Again, without trying to introduce any bias from us, you'll find these browsers are smaller and far more fleet of foot than Internet Explorer - even on well run, technically competent sites
Rob
Everything is in a single window with a line of captioned tabs across the top. Windows users will be used to seeing the same thing in the video display section of their control panel. Beautifully simple, intuitive and so, so easy to hide behind a convincing spreadsheet or other less career limiting workpiece
Again, without trying to introduce any bias from us, you'll find these browsers are smaller and far more fleet of foot than Internet Explorer - even on well run, technically competent sites
Rob
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FFF wrote:
Left clicking whilst holding down Shift achieves the same result
Will have a looked at tabbed browsing though.
VA
But I achieve something very similar using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Instead of clicking on the link for a thread I want to read, I right-click on it, and choose "Open in new window".
Will have a looked at tabbed browsing though.
VA
Opera. Offers tabbed, non-tabbed or a combination eg you can have an Opera window open with tabbed pages & have another Opera window on the go as well.
I usually use a single Opera window with ~30 tabs running. While one or more is/are loading I view one that has already completed. Once finished I send the current tab on to its next target & start reading a different tab. Works really well.
Standards compliant so any site that is written to W3C standards works. There are relatively few sites that require IE. They're usually poorly written with broken or strangeM$ specific code. Thank christ most work. It a real wrench for the worst to have to use IE.
Opera loads faster, is more secure, offers much greater control over cookies & pop-ups etc etc.
Areas to improve:
Access to cookie controls. It's a bit cumbersome & not very intuitive at first.
Bookmark/favorites (sic) management. Somewhat easier in IE.
I usually use a single Opera window with ~30 tabs running. While one or more is/are loading I view one that has already completed. Once finished I send the current tab on to its next target & start reading a different tab. Works really well.
Standards compliant so any site that is written to W3C standards works. There are relatively few sites that require IE. They're usually poorly written with broken or strangeM$ specific code. Thank christ most work. It a real wrench for the worst to have to use IE.
Opera loads faster, is more secure, offers much greater control over cookies & pop-ups etc etc.
Areas to improve:
Access to cookie controls. It's a bit cumbersome & not very intuitive at first.
Bookmark/favorites (sic) management. Somewhat easier in IE.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nottingham,UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tabbed Browsers
I can recommend the Avant Browser - it really changes the way you use things like Google and PPRuNe. It's also free (you can make a donation if you wish). Try http://www.avantbrowser.com/index.html