<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,<br><br></div>NOTE: check out the cdn version of the site: <a href="http://aslo.cf/">http://aslo.cf/</a><br><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:07 PM, James Cameron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:quozl@laptop.org" target="_blank">quozl@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:58:17PM +1000, Sam Parkinson wrote:<br>
> I added a blog within the aslo page. What do you think? (here is the<br>
> url if you don't want to scroll up: <a href="http://128.199.197.37/" target="_blank">http://128.199.197.37/</a> )<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think a blog is needed there.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, I probably needed to give that a bit of a rational.<br></div><div>It would be nice to have a blog for a bit of editorial content on the ASLO.<br>
</div><div>Many app stores have things like featured apps of the week and stuff and it would be nice to have that - I could help write some.<br></div><div>It would be impossible to make it work for every sugar user (every lang...) but it would be nice for some users. <br>
</div><div> </div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">> Make it faster, Make it faster.........<br><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Thanks for the tips :)<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I have taken tried out many of them; and there has been noticeable improvements in speed (~311kb vs ~700kb).<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I also got a (free) domain (freenom is a good site :P) and tried out cloudflare. Try it out at <a href="http://aslo.cf/">http://aslo.cf/</a><br>They have some pretty evil js compression which made it a lot faster - but since it broke some sloppy code I had to disable it - I will fix that so I can get REAL FAST JS!!!!!! <br>
</div><div class="gmail_quote">Otherwise the performance is pretty similar (I think the biggest thing cloudflare does is merge js files automatically - which I am doing already).<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Supposedly clouldflare takes load off your server; I am waiting for my dashboard to update for stats though :)<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I will look for some metrics, but maybe clouldflare could help take some of the load for the current aslo (17s load according to firefox) and <a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org">www.sugarlabs.org</a> (100% static = 100% cache-able)<br>
</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 09:10:10PM +1000, Sam Parkinson wrote:<br>
> But in a quick search I wasn't able to find what Flash is<br>
> actually being run. Maybe it is something in <a href="http://persona.org" target="_blank">persona.org</a>. Do<br>
> you really need to uyse <a href="http://persona.org" target="_blank">persona.org</a>?<br>
><br>
> I think persona is a good login system for users since there is no<br>
> confirm your email stuff. For me, it provides valid email<br>
> addresses, which is VERY useful.<br>
<br>
</div>Okay, but it costs data and time. In my latest test, it costs at<br>
least 229 KB and 1.7 seconds to load. While _you_ might want it, do<br>
your needs need to be satisfied regardless of the impact on all your<br>
users?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, I will start writing a login system.<br>I will try and make it integrate really well with sugar (read: lets hack browse activity to have 0-click logins).<br></div><div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
> - the slowest response of 1550 ms was from<br>
> <a href="http://aslo-bot-master.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">aslo-bot-master.sugarlabs.org</a>, and this large response time<br>
> persisted on repeated refreshes.<br>
><br>
> Oh, that always hit the filesystem. I added a cache now.<br>
<br>
</div>Did you measure the time? It is 1446 ms now, hardly different from<br>
before. The filesystem is already cached by the operating system, so<br>
adding a cache should have achieved nothing unless you were waiting<br>
for a write to disk to complete.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OMG. I see in firefox that about half of that time is DNS! It is on sugarlabs servers so maybe our dns is really bad! I have no idea about this, maybe @Bernie will know?<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
> - the web site depends on multiple servers, so the mean time between<br>
> failure (MTBF) is dramatically reduced. See [1].<br>
><br>
> Well, I think that splitting the servers is actually better. Some<br>
> things are served by reliable cdns (good). But separating the<br>
> non-essential bits (comments, recommendations) means that crashes<br>
> there will not effect the essential bits (data.json or<br>
> <a href="http://aslo-bot-master.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">aslo-bot-master.sugarlabs.org</a>)<br>
<br>
</div>You're so brave. But Sugar Labs has to be careful. Careful web<br>
design puts the whole content on reliable servers, but as few as<br>
possible, and this results in web sites that continue to function<br>
despite the various temporary problems that occur on the internet.<br>
<br>
Such problems are magnified in environments where Sugar is deployed;<br>
saturated networks, low performance, failed server lookups, etc.<br>
<div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, you know a lot more about this that me; what do you recommend?<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Does it need to look different on Firefox?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok, I'll fix it......... soon........ -ish.<br><br></div><div>Sam</div></div></div></div></div></div>