very very very slow response time

[victor4]

Ever since the relatively recent system 'crash' in late Feb. or early

March the response time has been terrible. Once in a while a page

loads normally, but 4 out of 5 times the wait is quite substantial,

sometimes ending with no page at all. Others have noted similar

instances in recent posts. If it wasn't for the fact that I did pay

for a subscription I would just cut and run. Hope seems to have kept

me going this far but not much more. It has been a good site, but not

at the moment.

 

I find it very difficult to believe the problem is on this end, no

other site I've visited in recent history has anywhere near this slow

of a load time.

 

For the record;

Windows 2000pro, Windows Explorer 6.x, Windows most recent updates,

broadband connection.

 

Thanks for listening, hope things improve soon.

 

Thanks for listening.

vic...

[rdlm]

I'd like to second Victor's comments about site performance. For the past several weeks it has been erratic at best and frequently terrible. I consider Photo.net to be a very valuable resource and not one I'd abandon quickly, but I do find myself growing impatient. I hope whatever the problem is can be remedied soon.

[jouni lehtonen]

Same thing, I have 10mbit connection, and every other sites load fine, but photo.net works very very slowly. This is really getting my nerves...I got mozilla firefox and win2000.

 

Here's route:

 

1 3926 ms <10 ms <10 ms 130.234.185.4

2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 130.234.253.161

3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 130.234.253.137

4 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms jyu-a201-jyu1.jyu.fi [130.234.254.6]

5 <10 ms <10 ms 10 ms uku0-p3300-jyu3.funet.fi

6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms tut0-p2000-uku0.funet.fi

7 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms helsinki0-p2000-tut0.funet.fi

8 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms fi-gw2.nordu.net [193.10.68.97]

9 10 ms 20 ms 20 ms se-kth.nordu.net [193.10.68.45]

10 11 ms 20 ms 20 ms so-1-0.hsa2.Stockholm1.Level3.net [213.242.69.21

]

11 10 ms 20 ms 20 ms so-8-0.hsa1.Stockholm1.Level3.net [213.242.68.14

1]

12 10 ms 20 ms 20 ms so-4-1-0.mp1.Stockholm1.Level3.net [213.242.68.1

38]

13 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms so-0-0-0.mp2.London1.Level3.net [212.187.128.25]

 

14 110 ms 120 ms 120 ms as-0-0.bbr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.68.128.106]

15 110 ms 120 ms 120 ms ge-10-0-51.ipcolo3.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.159.1

7.9]

16 110 ms 120 ms 120 ms unknown.Level3.net [64.152.17.166]

17 120 ms 120 ms 120 ms 216-127-244-193.focaldata.net [216.127.244.193]

 

18 120 ms 120 ms 130 ms photo.net [216.127.244.133]

 

Hoping improvement, Jouni

[jouni lehtonen]

sorry about that messy end of message =)

[frank thomas]

I have to say I've noticed the same thing - running XP with IE 6.

When you are browsing the photos, every minute or so the site locks up and I end up with a "Server not found or DNS error."

[bobatkins]

Very, very slow here too. Typical page loads taking 30s to 60s most of the day. Occasional instant loads, but usually long, long waits.

[lukep]

Phew!!! I almost ran out of patience trying to contribute this answer. I'm at least

a little relieved that I'm not the only one. I find the site runs lovely for about the

first minute and a half after login, and then the teium starts. I have taken to

closing down and logging back in every couple of minutes. It does make

using the whole thing rather painful, esp the business of reviewing and

commenting on photos... Please somebody HELP.

[Spearhead]

Me too, on several different networks.

[keith_laban]

Sadly I have to agree that the site performance has been painfully slow over the last few weeks. You have to be a dedicated photo.nut to be active on the site at the moment.

[jbs]

Ditto........................;)....J

[absinthe]

It is painstakingly slow today & I am getting lots of server errors.

[bobatkins]

I can also confim that it's not network congestion. I can run tracert several times while I'm waiting for a page to load (heck, I can make a cup of coffee while I'm waiting for a page to load sometimes...) and there's no delay in the connection to photo.net. Ping times are in the 125ms region.

[beepy]

Yes, similar experience here though hard to pinpoint a date. I have been travelling a tremendous amount and using different 'puters (MacOS X laptop and Safari, Windows 2000 and IE, and XP desktop), on many many different network.

<p>

Behaviour is puzzling - sometimes a page doesn't load. Just got an AOL server error (from photo.net) trying to load user forum. Safari times out. I have gotten automatic in my clicking on "reload" to eventually get a page. Compared to the "instabilities" of Jan/Feb this is mostly "stable but excrutiatingly slow".

<p>

Odd.

<p>

Ironies run rampant.

<p>

When I "Submit"ted response I got a rude AOL Server message (which I neglected to capture). Had to resubmit.

[mike dixon]

I've been opening up another browser window to do other web

surfing/mail/etc. while I wait for photo.net. I usually finish

everything else in the time it takes to read maybe a dozen

messages. Can I have my donation back?

[john falkenstine]

Sometimes no response at all. Downloads are buggy; text or images, even tho text is supposedly a "light" server load. Then, at times while downloading slowly the completion bar at the bottom of the page hangs at 50%, then suddenly completes the task. I am assuming that there's a major hardware problem somewhere. The problem is so severe that I have almost stopped posting images, cut way back on the number of images I like to look at and have completely stopped giving ratings or critiques because of the massive amount of time it takes. The current situation is not acceptable and I hope that it is being addressed in an agressive manner.

[ken_thalheimer]

This site has become in one word, terrible. Took me over 20 minutes to reopen the site to post this message.

[jay_philbrick]

It is now almost always a very frustrating experience trying to get onto the site and use it in any way. As it becomes more and more of a problem the site becomes less useful and I (and probably lots of others) are forced to go elsewhere. I hope the site administrators are able to fix things before too long. If my subscription was due to expire today, I doubt I would renew it. I really hope this situation can be improved. Thanks.

[gerald_widen]

I'm having the same problem although I'm sure management knows as they have to use the same slow system. Took me over a minute for this post. What worries me is many people subscribed over the the last drive thinking the system would improve. This led to a greater subscriber base that would renew when their time came up providing support for years to come. My feeling now is many people will not renew feeling they were promised improvements that never came.

[watchin]

It's the middle of the day, the net is quiet and I'm getting server

timeouts every other access. Something is definitely wrong at the

server farm.

 

It's not just IE, I've tried IE, Mozilla, Firefox, Konquerer, and the Gnome browser (what do they call that??) all with the same results.

SLOWWWLY

 

TIme on a ping is between 10ms and 51ms.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I am typically scanning old negatives; and Photo.net at the same time. Photo.net helps one cope with the scanner bog factor; ie time sink hole. The internet doesnt slow down the scanner(s); the slow dialup seems to buffer/temper me getting excited about the site being slower sometimes. This is with WIN98; and IE; and the fast line #1 dialups at 48,000 to 52,000. The other line#2 here is slower; ie 26,400; and drops slower when the usually bad weather goofs up the line. The phone company patches the slow line#2; to fix the static; it last for about 2 to 4 months. When full of static; the modem only connects well below 26,400......One time the second line only worked at 9,600; when full of static....

[yoni_perlmutter]

so slow as to be nearly unusable these days. fortunately the site's content is still good enough to "wait it out" most times. but not always.

but the waiting periods are lengthy & bothersome and there needs to be a fix for this problem. i hope photo.net will be able to do something

about it.

[davidfink_photography]

Would it not be possible to have a reply from Brian to this thread, giving some kind of update on the nature of the problems, and an estimate on the timeframe for meaningful improvements?

 

Oh....and are others currently unable to access "New Answers" under the Unified Forum view?? This hasn't worked on my end for the past day.

[davidfink_photography]

Sorry....I just saw that Brian did in fact reply to Keith Laban's thread, and that (at least as of a couple of days ago) he had nothing he could share about the nature of the problems or potential for fixing them.

 

I hope this all gets worked out in a timely manner.