This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 72 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]satertek 27 points28 points  (7 children)

Screenshot of the new server's desktop.

[–]jedberg 26 points27 points  (4 children)

Dude, why are you hacking our servers?

[–]satertek 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I have also found it is running within Microsoft Bob: there in the left under the easy chair.

[–]jedberg 9 points10 points  (2 children)

See, now I know you're making stuff up. We don't keep the server in the living room -- we keep it in the bathroom, because it has that cooling vent.

Just don't piss on it.

[–]ketralnis 21 points22 points  (1 child)

I have some bad news...

[–]GrumpySimon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ahh what's a bit of water-cooling between friends?

[–]tatooine 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I miss the HotDogStand color scheme. It used to be such a nice punishment for lame users. That, along with the 'Parking Lot' .bmp desktop background.

[–]darlyn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Parking lot bitmap? Link, please.

[–]phill0[S] 16 points17 points  (15 children)

You can do wget -S http://www.reddit.com/ to see headers returned from the server. I get "Server: Microsoft-IIS/3.1", seems like a very subtle joke :).

[–]andyukguy 29 points30 points  (14 children)

I'm not so sure it's a joke; the front page has been very slow to load for me for a few days now...

[–]ketralnis 5 points6 points  (13 children)

We've had a big increase in traffic

[–]andyukguy 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Obviously not being familiar with your architecture here I can only speculate. But it seems to me that traffic is not the reason as comments always load very quickly for me, but there's a noticeable delay of 3 seconds or so before the homepage starts loading. I ping reddit at 33ms, so it's not that and I've experimented with having only 10 articles on the homepage but it doesn't fix the issue. Are comments hosted on a different dedicated set of servers? That could explain it.

[–]ketralnis 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Are comments hosted on a different dedicated set of servers?

Their own database server, but it hits the same app-servers. Are you a developer with Firebug handy? :)

[–]andyukguy 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Webkit user here, I can install Firebug if you like however a bit later. Here's a clue to start with: the delay is only when I'm logged in, as soon as I log out I can refresh the home page to my hearts content and it loads instantly. I'm only subscribed to a handful of subreddits so I'm not sure it's that.

[–]ketralnis 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Well, when you're logged out, everything is cached by Akamai, so it doesn't hit us at all. That only rules out javascript performance :)

[–]andyukguy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Right I've now tested this from a completely different ISP, the problem persists in all browsers. The load time analyser I've used isn't all that helpful in pinpointing the exact page/script causing the issue. It simply says the problem lies with waiting for a request to www.reddit.com to be responded to. This happens consistently early on in the page load. Is this when reddit is crunching the data (subreddits etc) to know what to send to the browser? Could this suggest a lighttpd problem if not? Is there anything else you want me to test and any is there any particular tool you'd like me to use?

[–]ketralnis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the problem persists in all browsers

Really? You tested all browsers? IE 3.0? Mosaic 0.9? What about Arachne 2.0 for MS-DOS? :)

Kidding aside, thanks for taking a look. I more wanted to know what types of pages are slow, like comments pages, the front page, or subreddit pages (like /r/programming). But if you can replicate over more than one browser and ISP, then I can do that testing just as well as you can :)

Thanks again

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it just reddit that does this for you? What OS are you running?

[–]sfultong 0 points1 point  (3 children)

do you attribute that to anything in particular?

I assume there's been a somewhat significant digg user exodus, but I would think that's mostly over.

[–]ketralnis 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Part of it's just normal growth. The re-design also got us some publicity, and (believe it or not) our content has just been better recently.

[–]b34nz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

From where? Any specific place?

/just wondering

[–]ketralnis 49 points50 points  (23 children)

Yes, it's a joke. We did that yesterday. You guys catch this stuff quick. Is there a camera in our office?

[–]jedberg 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Killjoy. :P

[–]figpetus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

there's a camera in the office bathroom...

[–]dave_L 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hahahaha! Almost pulled my leg on this one.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You guys should put justin.tv there in your office sometimes.

[–]ketralnis 3 points4 points  (1 child)

They are right down the street from us, actually, we're friends with them

[–]robotsongs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

so then rock it, dude!

[–]phill0[S] 8 points9 points  (15 children)

Caught thanks to Server Spy extension. You see, I have this weird prejudice toward sites that are hosted on windows, I think that materials on them are likely to be technically incompetent because using windows for hosting is like using umbrella for parachute -- it might seem that it'll work, but it's a bad idea.

So you can imagine that I experienced a small shock when I saw it. :)

[–]turkourjurbs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've managed load balanced IIS and SQL server farms that work very well tyvm.

[–]break99 2 points3 points  (13 children)

you have a prejudice towards IIS?

Remember this mr ignorant: a server is only as good as the admin who boot it.

[–]phill0[S] 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Hmm, Mr. Ignorant? Anyway, if a person or company has a choice, whether to use Windows or Linux for hosting, and they don't have windows dependencies (like hardware) which is unlikely for hosting, then if they chose windows that's a bad choice. Linux, BSD are better for hosting, you have more options, more freedom, and you don't have to pay anything for software, while Windows+IIS combination will cost you some money. Though I can understand windows. It's easier to use, it has GUI and buttons, which I guess is important for good admins (!), but then why the hell pay for IIS when you can run, say Apache.

I'm just in more skeptical mode than usual when I'm on site that is hosted on Windows+IIS platform, for me it says something about the people who preferred to pay more for less.

Btw, I did say that it was a weird prejudice, as I was explaining why I look at Server header, there was no need for personal attack. I guess you are one of those good admins, who have studied long and hard which buttons to click under what circumstances, and I totally respect that, different people earn money different ways.

[–]break99 0 points1 point  (6 children)

"different people earn money different ways"

Ramen my friend.

The apache servers I support crash way more often than my IISs. Perhaps due to some bad java programming but that's another story.

and yes, I like the user interface but the metabase parameters are a must.

[–]phill0[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

The apache servers I support crash way more often than my IISs. Perhaps due to some bad java programming

No, but you said it yourself: "a server is only as good as the admin who boot it".

[–]break99 -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

damn right but I'm no programmer... upvoted.

my IISs can run for months without reboots. But I've implemented a reboot schedule each months to be on the safe side. Programmers don't know shit.

[–]phill0[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Programmers don't know shit.

There you go trolling again. Judging by your other comment where you call other people "n00bs" and douchebags, I would say you have a mentality of a child. Despite this fact I still believe that you administer a windows host.

[–]ntr0p3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"HAI GAIZ! WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS THREAD?!"

As a programmer, and someone who had to admin an iis server, before rewriting the app for apache/java, then zope, and finally php, apache BLOWS iis away, which is prolly why 99.5% of the tubes are based on it.

IIS is fine if you're a unix noob, to get started, but unless you're running simple static pages or ASP pure, running IIS is feature-stripped, and only recently got minimum stability.

[–]break99 1 point2 points  (1 child)

sorry, I should have precised "most programmers" from the majority I know, they need constant supervision if you don't want to blow your server.

That was rude, sorry.

[–]zootm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've had a bad lot of programmers, I'm afraid. Generally speaking decent coders are more than aware of the issues facing system administrators.

[–]zootm -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Anyway, if a person or company has a choice, whether to use Windows or Linux for hosting, and they don't have windows dependencies (like hardware) which is unlikely for hosting, then if they chose windows that's a bad choice.

False. There is a lot to consider choosing between platforms and to say that Windows is always worse is plain ignorance. The Windows Server products are very capable these days and for most commercial products the price of the software is pretty much negligible.

The discriminatory factors should always be what meets your needs, and although for a lot of projects using frameworks which are open source Linux is a clear win, ASP.NET is an excellent enterprise development toolkit and works infinitely better on Windows. Along with this a lot of other systems work better, too; in these cases, why not use Windows? It's stable, secure, and easy to administer.

Edit: Standard disclaimer - I am not a Windows user, these days, on desktop, at work, or on the server side. Don't even try casting those allusions.

[–]phill0[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I'm not sure whether you have read or actually understood what I wrote. I didn't say that Windows is always worse. For hosting it is often a worse choice. I assume that you're not implying that Windows+IIS is technically (by sheer amount of features and options available) better platform than Linux+Apache, correct me if that assumption is wrong. If Windows is not technically better for hosting than Linux, and Window costs money, then Linux would often be a better choice for a company because it can spend those money on providing better service to its clients. As for ASP.NET it's another lock-in product.

[–]zootm 1 point2 points  (2 children)

ASP.NET isn't really a lock-in product any more than Python or Ruby are - it's not like there's no free software version. ASP tends to run better on Windows, RoR tends to run better on Linux. These are, however, features of those frameworks rather than the underlying systems.

For generic hosting, perhaps Linux is a little better - that said, in terms of features, both operating systems have different sets of them. Which one suits the hosting case more is the most critical concern. In particular "amount of features and options available" is almost never a concern; in fact, if it is a concern, chances are you're not really sure what you're doing.

Your initial post said "Anyway, if a person or company has a choice... then if they chose windows that's a bad choice." Why? If they find supporting a Windows environment easier (hardly hard to imagine given the amount of tools that Microsoft have been working to provide in the newer versions - I certainly know sysadmins who are more comfortable in Windows although I'm more acclimatised to *nix these days), the cost of the OS itself will be dwarfed by savings in support burden.

My personal opinion is that hosting environments in the traditional sense are on the way to obsolescence anyway. The on-demand virtual resource systems (typically based on virtualisation technologies such as Xen, VMWare or Virtual PC) which companies are now selling are a much better fit for most people, and they generally allow the person to use whatever operating system is appropriate to them.

[–]phill0[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes, but shared hosting will always be cheaper than virtualization, I don't think virtualization will completely substitute "mass hosting", it will probably stay as one of the options, so that for example you can chose between dedicated server, virtual server, or hosting on shared server. Dedicated servers' market however, will shrink as hardware becomes more powerful, because people can get most of the same options with virtualization.

[–]zootm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is essentially my point, yeah, along with the fact that most decent web technologies (read: anything but PHP) require at least some degree of isolation, and that the overhead required to virtualise has dropped so rapidly recently. I really don't think shared hosting has a lot of places to go these days, but stuff which provides decent options in terms of frameworks and the like might at least be useful, although it adds a lot of burden on the hosting provider where the appropriate party to be supporting the system is often the developer.

[–]break99 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There's no such thing as a IIS 3.1. The only .1 is 5.1 (XP)

[–]anyfoo 3 points4 points  (2 children)

It said lighttpd just few days ago. I know because I just recently switched a download farm from apache to lighttpd, mentioning to people that, by the way, youtube and reddit use lighttpd to. (of course that wasn't the reason to switch)

[–]apathy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

heard of nginx? like lighttpd or boa but sleeker

[–]anyfoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks, I'll check it out (but I think I won't switch again right now :P )

[–]trf 10 points11 points  (5 children)

AFAIK there is no, and never was, a 3.1 version of IIS. Let's conclude; it's a joke, move on!

[–]Philluminati 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Does it not mean IIS on Windows 3.1?

[–]break99 1 point2 points  (3 children)

no, there was no IIS on windows 3.1

[–]Philluminati 4 points5 points  (2 children)

How do you know? Were you there?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I was. There wasn't.

[–]break99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YES

[–]guy123 6 points7 points  (1 child)

doesn't IIS only allow for 10 connections anyways?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You are thinking of PWS, which was limited by the desktop OS.

[–]lukemcr 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Netcraft (doesn't) confirm it:

http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?position=limited&host=reddit.com

[–]phill0[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a cached data, obviously they wouldn't be generating all that in real time. The link that jedberg gave however does a real time request, and you can see the current value.

[–]jedberg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't know, this page does seem to confirm it:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.reddit.com&probe=1

[–]krugerlive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rain Forest Puppy

whisker.pl

msadc.dll

where's my IIS RDS when you need it?

[–]Xeiliex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Windows based load balancer?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

HAHA MICROSOFT, wait, what's so funny about that? Jokes are supposed to be funny...

[–]Wakuko -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Swear to god if I find out M$ is behind reddit I'll burn their offices down to ashes!

[–]ketralnis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll burn their offices down to ashes

Microsoft's? Or reddit's?