A Conversation for Old Announcements: January - September 2011
This thread has been closed
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jim Lynn Posted Jan 14, 2004
"That still doesn't explain the few instances of seeing the thread with the post one has just posted and then going back to the thread to find another post has appeared *before* that post."
Assuming accurate observation, the only way I can think that this might happen is if two posts come in, but the second post's transaction completes before the first one (which might be possible on a multiprocessor database, depending on how granular the database's locking mechanisms are). So, you'd see the forum with your post, but shortly thereafter the 'first' post transaction completes, and the next time you view the forum, it slips in behind you. This would be unusual but not impossible.
"Then there were the instances of sometimes not being able to see all the posts in a thread until after posting even when the latest reply time showed that there were some."
I've seen this happen once myself, and it looked like an issue with cached data not expiring, but I wasn't in a position to do any useful analysis (like actually looking on the servers for the cache files). But the behaviour was very unpredictable in that one case so there wasn't an obvious cause that I could see.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
SEF Posted Jan 14, 2004
I've only seen posts slotting in before another one a couple of times. I'd put it in the unusual but not impossible category - possibly dependent on just how bad a time the servers are having.
The threads with invisible posts were happening quite a bit at one point last year (again perhaps during server problems) and were sometimes witnessed by multiple people making repeated attempts to view them with different types of link. Some links seemed to work but there was no consistency across people. At the time I don't think anyone deliberately tried using different NARTHURs (as would have been possible since it pre-dated the randomising of these).
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! Posted Jan 14, 2004
Apart from that being as clear as granite - I think I followed that!
So it depends on often your ISP server updates/sends data and how often the BBC server and database are updated.
As the BBC server and database can be out of sync - this can cause the little oddities we are seeing.........right?
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jab [Since 29th November 2002] Posted Jan 14, 2004
When you click 'Write a Reply' does the database get looked at then for a time stamp.
Then when you click 'Post' the server looked at for a current time, but maybe does not always work, using the first time stamp from the datbase?
Is the 'time slim' more noticed from posting a reply to the last post in a thread, and a post furthur back?
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jim Lynn Posted Jan 14, 2004
As demonstrated earlier, the timestamp is only determined at posting time, not when you start writing a reply, because that would be insane.
The timestamps are always taken from the database server, which means that all times are consistent in the database (unless the database time were to be adjusted). It's only the displaying of the time in relative format (2 minutes ago) which is wrong, because that requires the web servers to calcualate the elapsed time between the date of posting and its current time.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! Posted Jan 14, 2004
Ah, so it's our servers not yours causing the problems!
At least now we know!
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jab [Since 29th November 2002] Posted Jan 14, 2004
So why can post be 20+ minutes ago in some cases? Instead of "Just now?"
Would it be "insane" to look at the time of the post you are responding to, then calculate the relative time from then to 'now' from that?
Do you not have a network clock?
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jim Lynn Posted Jan 14, 2004
"So why can post be 20+ minutes ago in some cases? Instead of "Just now?""
I've never seen this reported. It's only ever been two or three minutes out.
"Would it be "insane" to look at the time of the post you are responding to, then calculate the relative time from then to 'now' from that?"
The time of the post you're responding to is totally irrelevant to the time you are currently posting. We don't store dates as relative time, we only display them like that. So everything in the database has absolute timestamps.
"Do you not have a network clock?"
Allegedly. But I suspect some misconfiguration leading to the servers failing to synchronise.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
SEF Posted Jan 14, 2004
I've only seen a matter of minutes difference too. However, it is possible to refresh a page (conversation list or thread) quickly a few times in succession and see the numbers jump backwards and forwards in time. So it looks as though certain servers are consistently out.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! Posted Jan 14, 2004
That clears *that* up!
Wasn't there an idea kicking around some time ago for everybody to register there local time for use in posts?
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jim Lynn Posted Jan 14, 2004
Local time is only useful if you display the actual time - since we use the relative time format, it's reasonably clear how long ago something was posted (which is the main thing you want to know in a thread, I feel).
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
E G Mel Posted Jan 14, 2004
Local time would only be useful if they had "posted : Wednesday 4th March 2004 16:02" since they only put the date I think we can forgive them a few hours
Mel
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
SEF Posted Jan 14, 2004
ican shows the thread post time-stamp in that sort of full format. However, it has oldest and latest comments (links to thread pages) the wrong way round!
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jim Lynn Posted Jan 14, 2004
Several recent sites have chosen not to use relative dates - at least one decided only to show the date of posting and not the time, which is the worst of all worlds, I think.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
GreyDesk Posted Jan 14, 2004
A local time format would have to take into consideration time zones. I think time stamping something, say, 16:04 GMT is about as useful as a chocolate teapot if you happen to be living in Chicago
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! Posted Jan 14, 2004
I know that - but I thought it being bounced around as a possibility for use on your home page?
Could be wrong, usually am on things like this!
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jab [Since 29th November 2002] Posted Jan 14, 2004
Thank you Jim for the detail. Yep have seen it being that long ago when I 'posted'. As to why, pass.
*serches the web for network clocks* How much!
Not like old days, get a teletext adaptor and extract the time from that to update the RTC.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! Posted Jan 14, 2004
I was thinking more along the lines of "My local time is " to be placed in a prominent position on your home page.
Jim - what are the chances of this happening?
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Jim Lynn Posted Jan 14, 2004
Depends on whether it would ever get added as a desired feature. If it's just the time we're talking about, that's quite easy to do. Dates would be a lot hairier.
Something like for example? Wouldn't take long to do.
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! Posted Jan 14, 2004
That's the sort of thing, or maybe have a clock that actually runs on your home page. I suppose digital would be better and if you're really sad - you can watch it ticking away!
Could you do an analogue clock?
Key: Complain about this post
12 January 2004: DNA Server Downtime Advance Notice
- 101: Jim Lynn (Jan 14, 2004)
- 102: SEF (Jan 14, 2004)
- 103: Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! (Jan 14, 2004)
- 104: Jab [Since 29th November 2002] (Jan 14, 2004)
- 105: Jim Lynn (Jan 14, 2004)
- 106: Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! (Jan 14, 2004)
- 107: Jab [Since 29th November 2002] (Jan 14, 2004)
- 108: Jim Lynn (Jan 14, 2004)
- 109: SEF (Jan 14, 2004)
- 110: Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! (Jan 14, 2004)
- 111: Jim Lynn (Jan 14, 2004)
- 112: E G Mel (Jan 14, 2004)
- 113: SEF (Jan 14, 2004)
- 114: Jim Lynn (Jan 14, 2004)
- 115: GreyDesk (Jan 14, 2004)
- 116: Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! (Jan 14, 2004)
- 117: Jab [Since 29th November 2002] (Jan 14, 2004)
- 118: Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! (Jan 14, 2004)
- 119: Jim Lynn (Jan 14, 2004)
- 120: Mr Inertia - Now new, improved and mostly human! (Jan 14, 2004)
More Conversations for Old Announcements: January - September 2011
- Thursday 20 October 2011: Bug Fixing Update: you have your names back. [204]
Dec 21, 2011 - Announcements [172]
Dec 11, 2011 - Friday 30 September, 2011: H2G2 Moves to its New Home [155]
Oct 21, 2011 - Announcements from the new h2g2! editors. Small bug with the yikes button. [86]
Oct 20, 2011 - Wednesday 07 September, 2011: Jane Belson has Passed Away [74]
Sep 16, 2011
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."