Nanochan (30)

1 Name: Anonymous : 2006-05-30 19:44 ID:y4bRAwuJ [Del]

http://www.nanochan.net

A small set of Wakaba boards with a phpBB forum backend, similar to Renchan in it's setup (minus the loli content). I'm looking for niche boards to add on request, but I ask everything be kept worksafe in every board. I'd like to see a few more anime-type board niches added if they're all not already taken. Anyway, you're all more than welcome to visit, and I hope you enjoy your stay regardless.

2 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-05-30 23:42 ID:Heaven [Del]

On the one hand, I like the website fits together, but your CPU time is going to get murdered by all that PHP. Do essentially static pages, like the mission statement, board rules, and presumably the front page, really need to make CGI calls?

Just a warning, considering how easy it is to exceed Dreamhosts's 60min/day CPU limit with dynamic sites.

3 Name: !WAHa.06x36 : 2006-05-31 03:33 ID:evc60wt7 [Del]

Also, why require registration on the forums? What purpose does that serve?

4 Name: Anonymous : 2006-05-31 11:56 ID:xMsaW6xQ [Del]

>>2

He could be running a cache. You never know.

5 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-02 18:37 ID:222+MAfi [Del]

What kind of pictures are the "Social meetings"-board for?

6 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-03 12:53 ID:1CYu1owm [Del]

>>2
Dreamhost's latest newsletter says such CPU restrictions are done for :)

7 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-03 18:42 ID:9xB9UFg0 [Del]

>>6 and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you!

8 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-03 19:46 ID:1CYu1owm [Del]

>>7
Yeah I do believe it. Why shouldn't I?

9 Name: Albright!LC/IWhc3yc : 2006-06-03 21:43 ID:H/abLpwe [Del]

CPU restrictions are over in the term of a definite number they're telling you you can't go over, but if you're still using up an inordinate amount of processing time, I'm sure they're gonna tell you to either clean up your act, get a dedicated server, or GTFO.

It's best to try to use as few processor cycles as possible, anyway; yes, to be considerate to the people you're sharing the server with, but also to be considerate to your own site's visitors.

10 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-05 20:30 ID:1CYu1owm [Del]

>>CPU restrictions are over in the term of a definite number they're telling you you can't go over, but if you're still using up an inordinate amount of processing time, I'm sure they're gonna tell you to either clean up your act, get a dedicated server, or GTFO.

So, assuming you're not trying to devour ticks, do you think it likely that one can meet this limit without meeting other, defined limits like bandwidth, disk space, etc?

(Asking seriously.)

11 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-06 01:27 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>10 very much so. Koichan ran into it with captchas - I can't remember what he did to fix that.

100% dynamic pages of nothing but text without optimization or cacheing could do it too..

12 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-06 08:59 ID:QMQfbDqW [Del]

Doesn't the vast majority of current forum software generate dynamic pages?

13 Name: !WAHa.06x36 : 2006-06-06 15:25 ID:Heaven [Del]

Yes, and people do have problems running them on Dreamhost, if the site in question is popular enough.

14 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-06 16:24 ID:Heaven [Del]

dreamhost seem to have removed their cpu minute restrictions, at least for now...

15 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-06 18:36 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>14

At least try to read the thread before posting, OK?

16 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-07 07:55 ID:QMQfbDqW [Del]

17 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-07 08:04 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>16 lol, BBB haet Dreamhost.

http://blog.dreamhost.com/2006/05/18/the-truth-about-overselling/#comments the comments sorta touch on this, and DH doesn't know why they've been ranked F - they think it's because they didn't call back the BBB guys at one point.

18 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-06-07 22:44 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>16
I recommend Site5.

I must point out that if your site is CPU heavy to the point that you're worried about going over Dreamhosts's limits, not many shared hosts will want you.

19 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-13 09:40 ID:ueemlKRH [Del]

My friend now hosts me. My uptime has improved dramatically. And -- what's that -- I can connect to my MySQL databases more often? :O Such wizardry.

I'm still pissed fuck off at Dreamhost charging me $10 for my "free" domain registration because I cancelled hosting. I still may or may not whine to my bank about that. If you give it away, then you've given it away. I don't think it's fair to come back and say, "well you're not our friend anymore, I'm charging you for that thing that is already in your possession." Fags. And I don't care what TOS said, because no one reads that and they know it.

>>17
I think it's because they're morons. At the very least they could have talked to the BBB since then about it.

>>18
Yeah but I heard stories of people who didn't even get substantial hits to their site getting in trouble for CPU limit overages. I was also told that Dreamhost likes to hold off for 97 days before telling you anything about them.

Regardless of what is true or not, such heavy criticism for a single host lead me to believe that I was better safe than sorry. My friend is hosting me ATM for free on his VPS. I can worry about getting real hosting if and when traffic on my site ever picks up.

20 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-06-14 00:07 ID:Heaven [Del]

> My uptime has improved dramatically.

How so? In one day or week you can say that with such confidence?

> such heavy criticism for a single host lead me to believe that I was better safe than sorry.

That could well be. I think you're being overly harsh though, since many (most?) IIchan boards run on Dreamhost, and as far as I know, all of us are happy.

In the end, you get what you pay for.

21 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-06-14 09:24 ID:wYBfnbko [Del]

> How so? In one day or week you can say that with such confidence?

Because I am home all day. I used to visit my own boards multiple times out of the day and find various types of downtime. Sometimes FTP wouldn't work, sometimes MySQL, sometimes my site in general, sometimes I couldn't access my site's admin panel, sometimes e-mail wasn't working. It seemed like it was always something.

So yeah, one week of no downtime is "dramatic".

> In the end, you get what you pay for.

Well I guess I fail for thinking I could get a year's worth of hosting $22.40 ??? :(

22 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-06-14 21:05 ID:Heaven [Del]

> I used to visit my own boards multiple times out of the day and find various types of downtime.

I haven't had the same experience, but fair enough.

> I could get a year's worth of hosting $22.40

$10/mo is peanuts, let alone $22.40/an. $10/mo is already scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

Also, yearly hosting plans are a mistake. Don't.

23 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-15 02:28 ID:Heaven [Del]

> various types of downtime.

Maybe your internet connection is flaky. Do other sites work reliably?

24 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-15 13:49 ID:xMsaW6xQ [Del]

> Also, yearly hosting plans are a mistake. Don't.

Is there any reason for this beyond a simple risk calculation? I find that the convenience and cost savings are larger than the risk of losing cash, at least for shared hosting.

25 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-06-15 19:12 ID:Heaven [Del]

> Is there any reason for this beyond a simple risk calculation?

Risk calculation, and possible additional leverage. After all, if you pay annual, they already have your money. A lot of operations, particularly the large number of fly-by-night ones infesting the hosting industry, only look at the short term.

Also, I don't think convenience enters the picture. The money is automatically taken from my credit card.

26 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-18 13:17 ID:jmkfT9o1 [Del]

incidentally, does the shit going down at danbooru affect wakaba boards at all?

> The unbuffered.info server is having problems because Dreamhost recently instituted a new no-more-than-100-concurrent-connections policy. Obviously, with danbooru’s thumbnails, this ceiling is hit very easily. Options are being explored.

27 Name: Anonymous : 2006-06-18 20:57 ID:9xB9UFg0 [Del]

>>26 Does this mean 100-concurrent-connections to the SQL server, or in general?

If it's SQL, that means 100 posts at the same time, which is pretty impossible. If it's in general (which I have not heard anything about), then yes, we might begin to have problems on the larger hosts on DH.

28 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-06-18 21:05 ID:Heaven [Del]

Modern browsers use pipelining and persistent connections, so unless I've misunderstood something, you'd need to be quite popular before that limit causes problems.

I haven't heard about this change though, which I don't like.

29 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-06-18 21:08 ID:Heaven [Del]

BTW, if you do start having problems, changing a couple options in config.pl to shorten the number of images displayed per page will fix it up (for the time being).

30 Name: !WAHa.06x36 : 2006-06-19 04:46 ID:/23LtgjJ [Del]

>>29

Not necessarily - as you said, with pipelining and persistent connections, you might actually be better off with MORE images per page, up to a point.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: