Zander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3200 times:
I don't think that the American people is the cause of it.
It's always that slow in my opinion and by the way isn't it more European people uploading to this site than Americans?
It feels like there is more photos from the airports in Europe than from America at least of those photos that have been accepted rather recently.
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 4099 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3168 times:
I have been experincing this problem since March. I made a post in refrence to this problem back then but no one responded. My problem however goes one step further, I keep getting dis-connected. Though I hate to say it, I am glad that some of you are having this problem as well, it means that there may be an incentive to fix whatever bug is hampering the uploads.
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 660 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 3158 times:
Think about it like this... even if the server was fast, the coding for the upload page includes all of the drop down menus and all of the options (every country/state/airport, every manufacturer/model type/airline code, every airline...) Those menues are made from thousands of lines of coding, so just for a computer to read them all would take a long time, regardless of server speed.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3142 times:
The page takes minutes to load, I see no difference between a 56K line, 1 1MB line and a 2MB line.
Given the amount of data that has to go over the line this is no surprise, so it has to be the script generating it.
Jeremy, your reasoning is at fault here.
The dropdowns shouldn't take more than a fraction of a second to generate, unless the database queries required and the database itself are extremely expensive and poorly performing.
The database being (probably) the same one the rest of the site is running on, that's unlikely to be the cause.
I've written many dynamic websites that are more complex than that page, performance was never an issue (if it took more than a few seconds, we'd go looking for improvements).
Even if the page is expensive to generate (in database operations/time), there are ways to improve the results such as caching the data so you don't do the database calls every time it loads (the data in this case doesn't change much, if you regenerate the page on the server every 24 hours and just show the cached page the rest of the time it would be more than sufficient).
Once loaded it works well (the upload itself is also relatively slow, but that is probably network related outside of the server) but the page generation needs some carefull tuning, even a factor 2 improvement would shave minutes of the loading time and I think a factor 10 might be possible.