New WoS and ZXDB

This is the place for general discussion and updates about the ZXDB Database. This forum is not specific to Spectrum Computing.

Moderator: druellan

User avatar
Pegaz
Manic Miner
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by Pegaz »

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. ;)
1 x

User avatar
1024MAK
Manic Miner
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:52 pm
Location: Sunny Somerset in the U.K. in Europe

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by 1024MAK »

@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
0 x

User avatar
Mike Davies
Microbot
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:11 am

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by Mike Davies »

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.
0 x

User avatar
moroz1999
Manic Miner
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by moroz1999 »

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.
Last edited by moroz1999 on Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Mike Davies
Microbot
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:11 am

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by Mike Davies »

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.
1 x

User avatar
ketmar
Manic Miner
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:25 pm

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by ketmar »

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.
1 x

User avatar
Mike Davies
Microbot
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:11 am

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by Mike Davies »

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.
0 x

User avatar
Pegaz
Manic Miner
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by Pegaz »

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."
3 x

User avatar
moroz1999
Manic Miner
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by moroz1999 »

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.
0 x

polomint
Berk
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:50 pm

Re: New WoS and ZXDB

Post by polomint »

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..
0 x
So far, so meh :)

Post Reply