Search disabled?

Jumpy · 12-10-2009 11:53am

Conor makes baby jesus cry.

Tease.

DublinWriter · 12-10-2009 6:36pm

...and the nominations for mySQL DBA of the year are...

colly10 · 12-10-2009 10:35pm

Don't mean to be critical but just wondering how something which previously worked could take so long to fix. I think the site isn't the same without it

colly10 · 12-10-2009 11:06pm

RopeDrink wrote: »

If the site 'isn't the same without it' then surely you deem it as critical enough to want it back in solid, 110% working order and not some barely-half working hamster in a wheel type search function

Agreed but my point was not "why not switch it back on now", it was "why is it taking so long to fix". If it was working previously I assume that the code that made it work is still available and would only require a few alterations to get working. Im guessing that its alot more complicated because it's been down for so long. Im just surprised that it is taking so long to get right

Conor · 12-10-2009 11:14pm

colly10 wrote: »

Agreed but my point was not "why not switch it back on now", it was "why is it taking so long to fix". If it was working previously I assume that the code that made it work is still available and would only require a few alterations to get working. Im guessing that its alot more complicated because it's been down for so long. Im just surprised that it is taking so long to get right

It's not a code issue, it's a capacity issue. No code needs to be changed.

We were forced to choose between a stable site with no search or an unstable site with search.

We're currently re-balancing the workload across the machines so that we can handle search.

5starpool · 12-10-2009 11:30pm

RopeDrink wrote: »

If the site 'isn't the same without it' then surely you deem it as critical enough to want it back in solid, 110% working order and not some barely-half working hamster in a wheel type search function given out in a hurry because people 'trying not to be critical' aren't getting it back as quick as they'd like?

I'm quite happy, really. Most of the weird buttons, cogs, dials and wheels that seem to break down once every year or two are things I've simply NEVER used. I don't miss the feature at all, much like I didn't miss the New Posts thing or pretty much anything... If I did, however, I'd trust that they would be brought back whenever they're in mint / working (or heck, even *better*) condition than before.

Patience!

EDIT:
Don't worry, that wasn't an attack on anyone - I just never used the feature enough to understand why so many people miss it, but thats just me. I'll say "Let's be patient, chaps!" and swing a big stick at the admins in a threatening manner anyway to keep the peace.

Just as well for you that you have quiet enough forums to mod. It has stopped me checking things that I took for granted before, such as looking for certain reregs, general poster history, etc. I don't use the actual search thing itself too much, but it is the other things that are driven by search that are missed by me personally.

orestes · 12-10-2009 11:33pm

5starpool wrote: »

Just as well for you that you have quiet enough forums to mod. It has stopped me checking things that I took for granted before, such as looking for certain reregs, general poster history, etc. I don't use the actual search thing itself too much, but it is the other things that are driven by search that are missed by me personally.

You better hope "you-know-who" doesn't read feedback dude

Conor · 12-10-2009 11:42pm

5starpool wrote: »

Just as well for you that you have quiet enough forums to mod. It has stopped me checking things that I took for granted before, such as looking for certain reregs, general poster history, etc. I don't use the actual search thing itself too much, but it is the other things that are driven by search that are missed by me personally.

Modutils doesn't rely on the search sub-system.

5starpool · 12-10-2009 11:46pm

orestes wrote: »

You better hope "you-know-who" doesn't read feedback dude

The annoying incarnations are easy to spot, the other ones can wait I guess. Better say no more, etc.

Conor wrote: »

Modutils doesn't rely on the search sub-system.

Not modutils, but the previous posts by poster is what I was specifically talking about.

Conor · 12-10-2009 11:52pm

5starpool wrote: »

Not modutils, but the previous posts by poster is what I was specifically talking about.

Go to modutils, use the 4th box from the top.

It's not the same, but it should keep you going in the meantime.

DeVore · 13-10-2009 12:13am

Imagine a server that is happily chugging along doing queries and searches.

Imagine growth to the point the server can no longer do both adequately.

We put a plan into action where another server needs to be brought up to speed (Os, DB Indices etc) so that it can service search all on its own.

That might take a bit of time to "fix". Its not exactly broken, its more like we are hitting a ceiling of capacity and need to turn it off to buy us some time to move it elsewhere.

DeV.

5starpool · 13-10-2009 12:35am

Conor wrote: »

Go to modutils, use the 4th box from the top.

It's not the same, but it should keep you going in the meantime.

Thanks Conor.

Boston · 13-10-2009 2:53pm

I like that search is down, it makes it more difficult for people to track my movement through out the site. It seems like a great equaliser.

DeVore wrote: »

Imagine a server that is happily chugging along doing queries and searches.

Imagine growth to the point the server can no longer do both adequately.

We put a plan into action where another server needs to be brought up to speed (Os, DB Indices etc) so that it can service search all on its own.

That might take a bit of time to "fix". Its not exactly broken, its more like we are hitting a ceiling of capacity and need to turn it off to buy us some time to move it elsewhere.

DeV.

You make it sound like this was a well thought out and planned downtime with services migrated to new hardware. In reality the server chugged along until it fell over at which point someone started to come up with a plan to fix the issue long term, probably Ross or Conor or both. You hadn't decided to split off search onto a new machine until well after the problem arose instead energy was expanded in attempts to have both general site queries and search queries on the one machine. As far as I recall search went down at around mid day, that seems an odd time to schedule planned maintenance. In fact, you weren't even in the office when things grinded to a halt.

Conor · 13-10-2009 2:57pm

Boston wrote: »

You make it sound like this was a well thought out and planned downtime with services migrated to new hardware. In reality the server chugged along until it fell over at which point someone started to come up with a plan to fix the issue long term, probably Ross or Conor or both. You hadn't decided to split off search onto a new machine until well after the problem arose instead energy was expanded in attempts to have both general site queries and search queries on the one machine. As far as I recall search went down at around mid day, that seems an odd time to schedule planned maintenance. In fact, you weren't even in the office when things grinded to a halt.

DeVore's explanation was an oversimplified version. Your interpretation of it is relying on incomplete data.

I'll be very happy to explain it all in detail, but only after I've finished working on the problem.

Boston · 13-10-2009 3:08pm

Conor wrote: »

DeVore's explanation was an oversimplified version. Your interpretation of it is relying on incomplete data.

I'll be very happy to explain it all in detail, but only after I've finished working on the problem.

I'd be careful with the criticism of il duce's adroit explanation there conor . I'd be delighted to see a detailed explanation of what happened and how it was fixed, but I think you'll find I've been classed persona non grata and a person with whom information of that nature is not to be shared. I wish you the best of luck with revolving the search issue in a speedy, effective and long term manner.

Rev. BlueJeans · 13-10-2009 4:50pm

Why should such info (if they even have it to hand) be shared with you, over and above any other user or voluntary mod?

Conor · 13-10-2009 4:51pm

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

Why should such info (if they even have it to hand) be shared with you, over and above any other user or voluntary mod?

Anything shared with Boston will be shared with the rest of ye at the same time.

Rev. BlueJeans · 13-10-2009 4:57pm

I don't doubt it, thank you

Boston · 13-10-2009 5:03pm

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

Why should such info (if they even have it to hand) be shared with you, over and above any other user or voluntary mod?

Odd conclusion to jump to that it would be specific to me. Conor was merely saying as a counter point to my post that he would be happy, at some point in the future (and I assume if appropriate) and willing to give a more detailed explanation of what happened. I pointed out that my interest alone would not be enough to convince those up on high of the need to divulge information. In fact it may be a motivator not to.

Your use of the phrase "if they even have it to hand" suggest a fundamental miss perception with regards to the type of information to be conveyed. The solution has not been arrived to as yet, so of course it is not "to hand", once the solution is implemented and proven to be effective, conor or another member of staff will be in a position to give full disclosure, should the powers thats move and shake deem that advantageous.

Jumpy · 13-10-2009 5:25pm

I like cheese.

orestes · 13-10-2009 6:55pm

Boston wrote: »

You make it sound like this was a well thought out and planned downtime with services migrated to new hardware. In reality the server chugged along until it fell over at which point someone started to come up with a plan to fix the issue long term, probably Ross or Conor or both. You hadn't decided to split off search onto a new machine until well after the problem arose instead energy was expanded in attempts to have both general site queries and search queries on the one machine. As far as I recall search went down at around mid day, that seems an odd time to schedule planned maintenance. In fact, you weren't even in the office when things grinded to a halt.

Are you stalking Dev or something?

Beruthiel · 13-10-2009 7:13pm

You ain't someone till you have your own personal stalker orestes.

Boston wrote: »

The solution has not been arrived to as yet, so of course it is not "to hand", once the solution is implemented and proven to be effective, conor or another member of staff will be in a position to give full disclosure, should the powers thats move and shake deem that advantageous.

There's a techie problem, the Techies are on it and will fix it.
I'm not sure what disclosure is required?
My eyes tend to glaze over when someone starts explaining stuff like that anyway.

Boston · 13-10-2009 7:44pm

orestes wrote: »

Are you stalking Dev or something?

0_o Nah. I'm DeVores golden calf.

Beruthiel wrote: »

You ain't someone till you have your own personal stalker orestes.

There's a techie problem, the Techies are on it and will fix it.
I'm not sure what disclosure is required?
My eyes tend to glaze over when someone starts explaining stuff like that anyway.

None is required per say. I just took umbrage at the seeming deliberate attempt to portray events as intentional, scheduled bit of maintenance, when in reality the ball was more then likely simply dropped. If it was just one of these problems that came out of left field forcing the techies to adjust and adapt on the fly then I think things have been handled remarkable well an professionally. But if they was preplanned as DeVore posts suggest, then I thinks it definitely could have been done a lot better and perhaps that's a reflection of a inadequate top down management structure.

In general I would find it interesting to know what happened, what was done to fix it and what if anything is being done to stop it happening again. Though I recognise that most users are simply happy when something works and never questions the hows and wherefores behind it. Again thats no bad thing.

DublinWriter · 13-10-2009 7:45pm

Jumpy wrote: »

I like cheese.

...and I still don't know what a tracker mortgage is.

Even so, would be interesting to see how one can split mySQL's indexing functionality to a different box and how successful it is.

DeVore · 13-10-2009 10:11pm

I never said it was a planned change, you made that bit up all on your own... I was explaining how it needn't be a "code change" that can cause something that was working, to stop working.

Also, you are right, I wasnt in the country when we made the decision to split search over to a third box. Oh if only there was some worldwide communications system I could tap into and be kept up to date with whats happening back in the office.

oh..

:rolleyes:

DeV.

Boston · 13-10-2009 10:44pm

DeVore wrote: »

I never said it was a planned change, you made that bit up all on your own... I was explaining how it needn't be a "code change" that can cause something that was working, to stop working.

Sorry, the implication of your post was that it was a problem which could be foreseen (Unless you're suggesting growth trends are somehow magical and without prediction). You're right, I assumed the management would have put in place a plan for changing/upgrading capacity, obviously I gave our supreme overlords too much credit, ney?

So the options so far are;

1) It was foreseen but unplanned for.
2) It was foreseen but planned for.
3) Completely unforeseen and thus unplanned for.

I'm probably off the mark somewhat but Its hard the gleam information in-between the point scoring.

Also, you are right, I wasnt in the country when we made the decision to split search over to a third box. Oh if only there was some worldwide communications system I could tap into and be kept up to date with whats happening back in the office.

oh..

:rolleyes:

DeV.

This little bit of information is interesting. Cause I know you were in the country the day search went off line. By saying the decision was made to split search off into a separate server when you were away, suggests to me the process was indeed started after the problem arose. That in turn ruled out the planned aspect of things. Thank you for the insight, do keep me posted. I missed engaging with people who feel they're oh so much cleverer then I am.

Nevyn · 14-10-2009 12:17am

5starpool wrote: »

Just as well for you that you have quiet enough forums to mod. It has stopped me checking things that I took for granted before, such as looking for certain reregs, general poster history, etc. I don't use the actual search thing itself too much, but it is the other things that are driven by search that are missed by me personally.

Ditto.

randylonghorn · 14-10-2009 1:45am

Beruthiel wrote: »

My eyes tend to glaze over when someone starts explaining stuff like that anyway.

That's what does it?! ... we all reckoned it was the Blue Nun! :pac:

Jaysus, Boston, will ya unbunch yer knickers, lad, yer gonna end up being with an awful pain in the hole the way yer goin'!! >.<

Boston · 14-10-2009 11:54am

Dick, Ass, Pain in the Ass. There has to be a Joke in there somewhere. Ney worry Randy, I've just decided to challenge things which I previously let slide on good faith.

oscarBravo · 14-10-2009 12:17pm

Boston wrote: »

...I've just decided to challenge things which I previously let slide on good faith.

Why?

Search disabled?

Comments