Difference between revisions of "User talk:GavinRobinson"
From Linking experiences of World War One
(answer about web hosting) |
m (Response re possible new host) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
: You're right that improving performance is a high priority. I suspect that in its current state the site will put off new volunteers, and I assume having a larger community will make a better case for funding. I don't know of anyone who particularly specialises in mediawiki. I use [http://ariotek.co.uk/ Ariotek] for hosting Wordpress blogs and have run a private mediawiki on their servers. Prices are reasonable for what you get, and performance and support are good. Their shared hosting is now on cloud servers that guarantee each account a certain share of resources. When they first switched to the cloud setup they had some problems (now fixed) with PHP/MySQL sites going slow because the server had an arbitrary limit on the number of Apache processes even when nothing else was over the limit. I wonder if that could be part of the problem here, because the more Lua scripts are called from a page, the worse it gets, while pages without infoboxes are saving very fast. In any case, better hosting would be worth having.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 11:56, 2 June 2015 (PDT) | : You're right that improving performance is a high priority. I suspect that in its current state the site will put off new volunteers, and I assume having a larger community will make a better case for funding. I don't know of anyone who particularly specialises in mediawiki. I use [http://ariotek.co.uk/ Ariotek] for hosting Wordpress blogs and have run a private mediawiki on their servers. Prices are reasonable for what you get, and performance and support are good. Their shared hosting is now on cloud servers that guarantee each account a certain share of resources. When they first switched to the cloud setup they had some problems (now fixed) with PHP/MySQL sites going slow because the server had an arbitrary limit on the number of Apache processes even when nothing else was over the limit. I wonder if that could be part of the problem here, because the more Lua scripts are called from a page, the worse it gets, while pages without infoboxes are saving very fast. In any case, better hosting would be worth having.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 11:56, 2 June 2015 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Thanks Gavin! I'll have some time free from the middle of the month so I'll have a look then. There's also a new version of MediaWiki out which will presumably be stable by then so I'll be upgrading that too. I'll give you plenty of notice though! --[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 09:25, 3 June 2015 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:25, 3 June 2015
Welcome, and thank you for all your contributions in discussion and data, it's already been so helpful! --Mia (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2014 (PST)
Let me know if the infobox and caching changes help or not - I'll keep tweaking if necessary. --Mia (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2015 (PST)
Do you know of any specialist mediawiki hosts? I'm thinking of just funding a (slightly) better server myself as I know it must be frustrating when things are slow. Ultimately I'd like to find funding to take the project further but a short-term fix is better than nothing. --Mia (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2015 (PDT)
- You're right that improving performance is a high priority. I suspect that in its current state the site will put off new volunteers, and I assume having a larger community will make a better case for funding. I don't know of anyone who particularly specialises in mediawiki. I use Ariotek for hosting Wordpress blogs and have run a private mediawiki on their servers. Prices are reasonable for what you get, and performance and support are good. Their shared hosting is now on cloud servers that guarantee each account a certain share of resources. When they first switched to the cloud setup they had some problems (now fixed) with PHP/MySQL sites going slow because the server had an arbitrary limit on the number of Apache processes even when nothing else was over the limit. I wonder if that could be part of the problem here, because the more Lua scripts are called from a page, the worse it gets, while pages without infoboxes are saving very fast. In any case, better hosting would be worth having.--GavinRobinson (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2015 (PDT)
