Spectrum Computing

PeterJ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:36 pm ... and we can have a group hug (1 metre apart obviously!).

Err, TWO metres apart unless you are using medical grade PPE mask, face guard, protective suit, gloves etc...

Mark

1024MAK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:43 pm
Err, TWO metres apart unless you are using medical grade PPE mask, face guard, protective suit, gloves etc...

Mark

Apologies [mention]1024MAK[/mention]. You are quite right. The 1M does not start until Saturday 4th July (England). By the way, who on earth came up with the idea of re-opening all the pubs on a Saturday....

Back on topic...

Although new WoS contains an online update tool, very few changes have been made using it. Most recent changes were applied directly to the database in a hurry, as reaction to the evidences I have been posting here

New WoS was launched 18 days ago (June 15th). During this time, there were 12 relevant changes to individual entries in new WoS, except for "RZX files" added manually one by one (which is nonsense since they can be imported all at once from latest ZXDB version). They are listed here:

https://worldofspectrum.org/archive/whats_new

One of them was additional comments for an adventure called "Werner's Quest". ZXDB didn't change this comment since it was imported from Martijn's old WoS. So this is how it appears at SpectrumComputing for instance:



On June 17th, new comments were added using new WoS online update tool, so it looked like this:



Yesterday, when Fogarty Lee was in a hurry to revert all comments taken from ZXDB 2018, he ended up reverting his own changes too. This is how it appears in new WoS now:



Notice how these additional comments vanished, although it still shows it was updated on June 17th. Ouch!


NOTE: Reproduced from my post at the WoS forum

This soap opera is amazing... I've got popcorn !

hitm4n wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:20 pm This soap opera is amazing... I've got popcorn !

Next Martijn's going to walk out of the shower and say it was all just a nightmare.

This is interesting!

3D Monster Maze is one of my favorite ZX81 games. Russell Marks ported it to the Spectrum, here's a comment taken directly from Martijn's internal WoS file:
This is how it appeared at the old WOS site:



As I mentioned before, ZXDB added IDs to these references. This is the same comment from ZXDB 2018:
As I also mentioned before, Fogarty Lee has just modified all comments to remove title and publisher, but keep IDs from ZXDB. This is the same comment right now, in today's new WoS CSV file:
And this is exactly how it looks right now at new WoS:



It makes sense, right?

But...

Hold on...

Wait a minute...

Do you remember when I mentioned, in my original post, that IDs in Martijn's old WoS stopped at 28187? Martijn's old WoS never gave IDs to any ZX81 title! Also new WoS doesn't even contain any ZX81 titles! Where did this ID number come from???

It turns out this is a new ZXDB ID for the original ZX81 version. You can find this ID in all sites using ZXDB content. Give it a try at SpectrumComputing:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry.php?id=0028617

Or ZXInfo:

https://zxinfo.dk/details/0028617

Or ZX-Art:

http://zxart.ee/route/lang:eng/type:pro ... Id:0028617

Or Spectrum 2.0:

http://spectrum20.org/games/28617

Interestingly, Lee Fogarty explicitly stated he would never use new ZXDB IDs. So how can we explain ZXDB IDs misteriously appearing inside new WoS?

I guess we will never know...


NOTE: Reproduced from my post at the WoS forum

OK, I'm tired of playing wack-a-mole** where I point out a new evidence and Lee Fogarty rushes to hide it.

I'm busy now, but tomorrow I will post one final, more compelling evidence and be done with it.

Unless I'm given new reason to get back here, that is.


** Thanks to the people at SpectrumComputing forum for suggesting this term


NOTE: Reproduced from my post at the WoS forum

polomint wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:29 pm That is something else that has nothing to do with the forums.

You're obviously confused. This is the Spectrum Computing form. This section is ZXDB discussion, so this thread - about the use of ZXDB on WoS - is perfectly on topic.

The WoS forum, too, is even more so on topic. Remember when Fogarty said his development plan for WoS was to integrate the WoS forum with the rest of the site, so your login details would also be used when you submit a change? That indicates that the intention of new WoS is to not have a "separate forum". And WoS is using ZXDB. Highlighting that on the WoS forum is perfectly on topic -- heck Einar's post is in the Updates section -- the section of the forum that talks about updates to the World of Spectrum archive.

Really, you are confused, @polomint.
Why are Fogarty and Chandler keeping quiet? Why don't they offer a clear explanation of how it is all these details noticed by Einar are completely coincidental, and not taken from ZXDB? Don't you find that odd?
I, for one, praise Einar for making his point publicly, and standing his ground. The evidence is irrefutable -- you must already recognise that.

For the record, I have recently received some communications.

It was a private communication, so I am not at liberty to reproduce it here. And no please don’t ask. No one has ever managed to prise any private information out of me in the last 25 years, so don’t waste your or my time.

However, I think everyone in this topic has made the comments they want. So now may be the time to let this topic go quiet.

Mark

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:09 pm Note: SC doesn't use Apache to serve up static assets, and I believe it's using PHP-FPM -- which is why SC is still quick loading when dealing with traffic levels multiple times higher than what currently takes WoS down.

Is it really so? As far as I can see, at least logo (which is a truely static asset) is being served through Apache. And anyway PHP-FPM is also working through apache process, so it cannot be faster than apache itself.

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:43 pm

polomint wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:29 pm That is something else that has nothing to do with the forums.

You're obviously confused. This is the Spectrum Computing form. This section is ZXDB discussion, so this thread - about the use of ZXDB on WoS - is perfectly on topic.

The WoS forum, too, is even more so on topic. Remember when Fogarty said his development plan for WoS was to integrate the WoS forum with the rest of the site, so your login details would also be used when you submit a change? That indicates that the intention of new WoS is to not have a "separate forum". And WoS is using ZXDB. Highlighting that on the WoS forum is perfectly on topic -- heck Einar's post is in the Updates section -- the section of the forum that talks about updates to the World of Spectrum archive.

Really, you are confused, @polomint.
Why are Fogarty and Chandler keeping quiet? Why don't they offer a clear explanation of how it is all these details noticed by Einar are completely coincidental, and not taken from ZXDB? Don't you find that odd?
I, for one, praise Einar for making his point publicly, and standing his ground. The evidence is irrefutable -- you must already recognise that.

He's not confused at all, Mike.
And he certainly didn't come here to answer the questions you asked.
So, you're just wasting your time.

1024MAK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:19 pm
However, I think everyone in this topic has made the comments they want. So now may be the time to let this topic go quiet.

Mark

Yeah, that would be really appropriate, wouldn't it Mark?
Just wonder who would be happiest man, if that whole debate fell silent and things are swept under the rug...
You only have the right to guess once.

[mention]Pegaz[/mention]

Hey, I’m not on anyone’s side and I certainly have no intention of being anyone’s ‘boy’ or of being ‘played’. I make my own decisions based on the information available to me.

Hence elsewhere I said:

I wrote:You know what Einar has said publicly on both forums.
As an observer, it does seem to me that he does make a very convincing case.

This is not my forum and I’m just an ordinary user here. Just as I’m just an ordinary user over on WoS.

I would prefer the community to work together rather than against one another, that’s all.

If you want to carry on talking about WoS in this topic, that’s up to you.

Mark

moroz1999 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:30 pm

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:09 pm Note: SC doesn't use Apache to serve up static assets, and I believe it's using PHP-FPM -- which is why SC is still quick loading when dealing with traffic levels multiple times higher than what currently takes WoS down.

Is it really so? As far as I can see, at least logo (which is a truely static asset) is being served through Apache. And anyway PHP-FPM is also working through apache process, so it cannot be faster than apache itself.

errr... no. PHP-FPM doesn't run through an apache process. It's a standalone process manager. Once you're on the process manager stage, you'd also realise there's no point running Apache, and instead run NginX. And Nginx handles concurrent requests a heck of a lot better than Apache, lightweight and faster. And only requests that need to be handled by PHP are proxied to the PHP-FPM process, and scaling horizontally becomes just a config tweak in Nginx.

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:57 pm errr... no. PHP-FPM doesn't run through an apache process. It's a standalone process manager. Once you're on the process manager stage, you'd also realise there's no point running Apache, and instead run NginX. And Nginx handles concurrent requests a heck of a lot better than Apache, lightweight and faster. And only requests that need to be handled by PHP are proxied to the PHP-FPM process, and scaling horizontally becomes just a config tweak in Nginx.

Ok, PHP-FPM can be run on nginx as well, that's true. What I meant is that PHP-FPM is not an HTTP server, and it requires one.
Is nginx being used on SC? As far as I can see it is not. There is Apache's header in responses.

So I just don't see how serving files through PHP-FPM and then through Apache can be more effective than just through Apache. I'm not telling something is slow here, just wanted to clarify.

1024MAK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:19 pm For the record, I have recently received some communications.

For the record, no-one from the WoS admin team has responded fully to Einar's concerns in the same manner Einar raised them. And that same team is quite content to slander Einar and his work at every turn.

That same team can pull its finger out and adequately responds to Einar's concerns in the exact same place he's raised them. Einar has even given them the choice of whether to do it on WoS or here.

1024MAK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:19 pm However, I think everyone in this topic has made the comments they want. So now may be the time to let this topic go quiet.

Errr, no. This topic goes quiet when all of Einar's concerns have been fully dealt with to his satisfaction.

1024MAK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:19 pm However, I think everyone in this topic has made the comments they want. So now may be the time to let this topic go quiet.

it is hard to do while WoS team keep on delivering.

moroz1999 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:03 pm So I just don't see how serving files through PHP-FPM and then through Apache can be more effective than just through Apache. I'm not telling something is slow here, just wanted to clarify.

Apache concurrency is limited to how many child processes you are running. 10 child processes, 10 concurrent requests. The maximum number of child processes you can run is based on how much RAM a child process needs, and how much RAM your server has. The size of the child process is based on which extensions you enable in Apache. Something like mod_php plus a bundle of "standard" extensions can seriously weight down a child process, and hit the number of concurrent requests the server can handle.

Offloading PHP from Apache into a process manager means apache child process can be much smaller. Not every request needs a PHP engine -- static assets certainly don't. So you can get Apache to deal with the static asset requests (and redirections, ssl handshakes, authentication, etc.), and proxy to a process manager when a PHP script needs to handle the request. That pushes the concurrency level much higher, because you can shape both the apache child process and FPM processes based on your traffic.

1024MAK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:55 pm @Pegaz

Hey, I’m not on anyone’s side and I certainly have no intention of being anyone’s ‘boy’ or of being ‘played’. I make my own decisions based on the information available to me.

Hence elsewhere I said:

I wrote:You know what Einar has said publicly on both forums.
As an observer, it does seem to me that he does make a very convincing case.

This is not my forum and I’m just an ordinary user here. Just as I’m just an ordinary user over on WoS.

I would prefer the community to work together rather than against one another, that’s all.

If you want to carry on talking about WoS in this topic, that’s up to you.

Mark

I want it all the same Mark, even more than that.
Actually, I would like Martjin to come back and explain what was going on behind the scenes.
I doubt that all that will come true, nor that good wishes are enough.
One rotten apple is enough to ruin the whole basket.
I will not be silent for many reasons, one of the main ones is the feeling of bitterness and injustice, caused by the behavior and actions of the current wos mantainer Fogarty Lee.
I hold him personally responsible for the divisions and conflicts among the Spectrum community, which have been going on for three years now.
Thats why I won't keep quiet when it comes to this topic.
As Edmund Burke nicely put it - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:22 pm Offloading PHP from Apache into a process manager means apache child process can be much smaller. Not every request needs a PHP engine -- static assets certainly don't. So you can get Apache to deal with the static asset requests (and redirections, ssl handshakes, authentication, etc.), and proxy to a process manager when a PHP script needs to handle the request. That pushes the concurrency level much higher, because you can shape both the apache child process and FPM processes based on your traffic.

Sorry, I don't get it. How would you pass request data to PHP-FPM without a web server? Whether it is Apache or nginx. Otherwise I agree to the concept you are writing about. It's just my initial comment was an answer to your post:

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:09 pm Note: SC doesn't use Apache to serve up static assets, and I believe it's using PHP-FPM -- which is why SC is still quick loading when dealing with traffic levels multiple times higher than what currently takes WoS down. And on a fraction of the computing power. You (SC) are doing some things right, and better than WoS on a technical level.

Points which made me asking for the details are these. As far as I know:
1. SC does use Apache for every request.
2. PHP-FPM cannot be used instead of Apache. It can be used with Apache OR with nginx (or with any other web server). Am I wrong with this one?
3. Still there is no nginx on SC.
I don't want to argue about this really, because I was asking this out of a pure technical curiosity.

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:43 pm

polomint wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:29 pm That is something else that has nothing to do with the forums.

You're obviously confused. This is the Spectrum Computing form. This section is ZXDB discussion, so this thread - about the use of ZXDB on WoS - is perfectly on topic.

Confusion is relative, and so is manipulating the thoughts of others...

Saying you have been slandered is not a forum thing.

How hard is it to understand the law and logic of that..

moroz1999 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:42 pm 2. PHP-FPM cannot be used instead of Apache. It can be used with Apache OR with nginx (or with any other web server). Am I wrong with this one?

PHP-FPM can be used instead of mod_php. Mod_php is an Apache extension that put the full PHP runtime into each Apache child process.

I don't think SC uses PHP-FPM, but HHVM instead. Which is a facebook-optimised PHP runtime.

[mention]Mike Davies[/mention] Yes we get that you know a lot about sh*te.. But guess what ( as you probably already know), different instances don't work the same way..... I run the same sh*te for over 100 thousand users across 15 countries, so I know that what you say is true, but not necessarily true for the sh*t I do.

Do not assume something that you have no idea about,.... ( I was told that at 8 yrs old, and it holds true today at 48 years old)..

Mike Davies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:53 pm PHP-FPM can be used instead of mod_php. Mod_php is an Apache extension that put the full PHP runtime into each Apache child process.

I don't think SC uses PHP-FPM, but HHVM instead. Which is a facebook-optimised PHP runtime.

But you still need some http server, whether it is FPM or mod_php. And it is Apache on SC. And I am pretty sure that there is no HHVM on SC, there is Apache + PHP-FPM, which are effective enough for SC needs.

[mention]polomint[/mention]
I believe you are a friend of Richard and Lee.
So maybe tell them that wiping traces and pretending that they don't use ZXDB is simply stupid as
the evidence is overwhelming.
Maybe they'll listen to you if they don't want to talk to Einar and other people.

If they just admit it, this discussion will be over.

Ralf wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:00 pm If they just admit it, this discussion will be over.

it is too late. if they'll do it, they would have to admit that they were lying all along, and were trying to cover their traces. considering the hyperinflated ego of some WoS team members it is very unlikely that they will agree to accept their wrongdoings. even if we all will promise to never ever talk about that again. alas.