A solution to keeping database size down?

DavebytheSea · Post by **DavebytheSea** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:12 pm

I am totally with RR on this - the valuable stuff should be kept whatever and wherever it is.

Stating the obvious, I think we have to treat different threads differently, but also different postings. My suggestions would run something like as follows:

CH related threads.
1. Important threads MUST be preserved but may be pruned. We are collecting information that may otherwise be lost for ever. We should see the forum as a vital archive of OB memories and debates concerning the school. However, such threads do need to be pruned of extraneous material. To lesson the burden on JT and Simon, this could be done by trusted members of the forum who have a record of serious posting for at least some of the time and over a longish period. A number of us could volunteer to "adopt" certain threads and keep them free of extraneous matter while preserving both the flavour and substance of any debate.

2. We should respect CH threads and do our best to minimise off topic material and general chit-chat.

3. Certain threads in this section could be marked as "short-lived" - e.g. those that have a bearing on a matter of only passing importance - e.g "anyone know when the carol service is to be held this year?". These would be allowed to drop off once they had remained unused for say 3 months.

Non CH related threads.
1. We should not assume that these are without lasting value even if they do not contain recent postings. Some of us use the search button to research material that may have been posted months even years ago. I think there is an argument for first pruning and then locking such threads. We may need additional moderators to undertake this.

2. We should all try to keep banter and chit chat to certain well defined threads and, while comment is often valuable, equally it sometimes progresses to unreasonable lengths. This effectively shuts off the valuable parts of the discussion from those who do not have time to wade through the extraneous matter. Is it possible to have a chatterbox thread?

3. I think I am now on dangerous ground, but one of the most dispiriting things is to see that every most recent posting is by the same author. I cannot believe that there is any one of us who are so polymathematical as to have an interest in all and every topic under the sun. We should maybe think to contribute only to those threads and topics in which we have a genuine interest. I can well imagine that for all those who regard DBTS as a pompous old prat, it would be a real turn-off to see his name appearing as the most recent poster on every thread and topic in the forum. Please, please let us try to be selective in our postings.

Finally, I have great sympathy with those who come to read our postings and maybe consider posting themselves, but then turn away disapponted, seeing that the forum is dominated by just a small clique who are in the know, and among which they feel they have no place. Some have asked the question as to why so many register and do not post; here I think lies the answer.

DavebytheSea · Post by **DavebytheSea** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:20 pm

Mid A 15 wrote:Maybe that is the answer simply make a post on a thread that you want to keep if it is over 3 months old.

I cannot believe that posting for the sake of posting should be encouraged. If an old thread is valuable, it should be kept. It may even be necessary to lock it having first pruned it.

Mrs C. · Post by **Mrs C.** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:29 pm

DavebytheSea wrote: To lesson the burden on JT and Simon, this could be done by trusted members of the forum who have a record of serious posting for at least some of the time and over a longish period. A number of us could volunteer to "adopt" certain threads and keep them free of extraneous matter while preserving both the flavour and substance of any debate.

That rules out most then!!!

midget · Post by **midget** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:49 pm

DavebytheSea wrote:Finally, I have great sympathy with those who come to read our postings and maybe consider posting themselves, but then turn away disapponted, seeing that the forum is dominated by just a small clique who are in the know, and among which they feel they have no place. Some have asked the question as to why so many register and do not post; here I think lies the answer.

I agree. When I first joined I felt reluctant to join in but I love it now.

Maggie

John Knight · Post by **John Knight** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:35 am

If the forum stopped listing the 'Total Posts' in the left hand column it would do two things:
a) Keep threads on topic.
b) Reduce the size of the database in future.

Great Plum · Post by **Great Plum** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:30 pm

One thing that a forum I post on does is to only have the post count work in the non-chat forums...

DavebytheSea · Post by **DavebytheSea** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:51 pm

palgsm93 wrote:How about deleting the 1st 200 pages of Mallett's Mallet?!

Has anyone read these pages in the last month????

Jude · Post by **Jude** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:46 pm

i think Mallets Mallet has had it - I couldn't post, no Avatars came up and it looks a tad out of character.

Personally I think we should all go through stuff WE HAVE WRITTEN and if it is rubbish then edit it and delete it - after all - a one liner with say 5 words hardly can be called wisdom at most times can it?

I am happy to remove my stuff - regardess, as if it is important - then it will come up again in a topic - Think about the problem - the problem is space - space we have got, BUT when the process of backing up and restoring is done it requires THREE times the amount that the data base is. So it's a problem. Therefore we should start writing sensibly until Julian has got from us the topics we feel can be deleted and then the poor lad can rest for a bit!

Think about the amount of work he is doing unpaid for all of us!

blondie95 · Post by **blondie95** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:09 pm

I think that mallets mallet could loose the previouse 200 pages but please dont stop it its funny to see the logic of some peoples minds.

as for deleating own stuuf, some short threads i do think are pearls of wisdom!!!

DavebytheSea · Post by **DavebytheSea** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:23 pm

Indeed, Amy. .... and some are pearls of folly.

Both, I think, may be worth keeping.

blondie95 · Post by **blondie95** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:37 pm

exactly-you never know when we need to call upon folly past

matthew · Post by **matthew** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:37 am

Out of curiosity -- and perhaps there's a post here I've not paid proper attention to -- what's the motivation for reducing the database size? Are you running up against a limit here, or is there another problem you're trying to solve?

I'd be inclined to avoid throwing data away, though we may want to move older threads to an archive area. There are a lot of posts, but we're talking tens of megabytes here, not gigabytes.

As a (slightly geeky) aside, if dropping and recreating the database improved performance, you probably had a fragmentation problem. In which case, try optimizing your tables next time before resorting to anything drastic.

Post by **jtaylor** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:20 am

matthew wrote:Out of curiosity -- and perhaps there's a post here I've not paid proper attention to -- what's the motivation for reducing the database size? Are you running up against a limit here, or is there another problem you're trying to solve?

I'm thinking that this may well be a red-herring, but performance does seem to have slowed following a dramatic increase in traffic, which has increased the database size.
I'm more inclined to think that 1and1 are struggling in some way with the overall traffic on their servers, and hence not rushing to a further conclusion.
We have a 100Meg limit on the database size, and are currently at 30Meg, so we will have to consider this longer-term.

matthew wrote: I'd be inclined to avoid throwing data away, though we may want to move older threads to an archive area. There are a lot of posts, but we're talking tens of megabytes here, not gigabytes.

I agree - ideally don't want to, but there are also some threads which will genuinely serve no purpose later...

matthew wrote: As a (slightly geeky) aside, if dropping and recreating the database improved performance, you probably had a fragmentation problem. In which case, try optimizing your tables next time before resorting to anything drastic.

I've just found the optimising syntax, and run it on a few tables - thanks for the advice, that'll be really useful to try if it gets really slow again.

All advice/help greatly appreciated, so thanks for the ideas/questions.

Cheers,

J

Mid A 15 · Post by **Mid A 15** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:34 am

What I know about computers and their workings can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

However it is my understanding that photos use more space than text. JR submitted some amusing photos, via Sean, recently. Could they have had an effect as the forum seemed to slow about then?

I'm not intending to have a dig at anybody I'm just genuinely ignorant about computers and trying to learn something!

Post by **jtaylor** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:05 pm

It depends on where the pictures are stored.
If they're on the CH Forum server, then yes they'll take up space, but as I'm the only person with direct access to upload photos to the server there aren't many on there.
Most are linked from other website, and hence are as fast as those sites (when you open a CH Forum page with photos, it goes away to the other sites and gets the pics)

So, in short, pictures don't really slow down the general working of the forum, BUT they WILL slow down the page-refresh of the topic that has the pictures in.

J