View Member's Blog Listing
Channel: Kid Sift
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
James Roe Member Profile  Member Since: 2006-02-20 Charter Subdomain: http://jamesroe.videosift.com Last Power Points used: 2009-04-27 • Available: now Max Power Points: 2 • Get More Power Points Now  Random Videos from My Personal QueueComments |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 86 Rating: 
281 star pointsTop 15 Videos: 2 Votes Received: 5836 Average Votes Per Video: 26.29 Votes Cast: 5134 Comments Posted: 2713 • browse Comments Applauded: 3 Sifted Videos: 222 Sift Talk Posts: 94 Quality Sift Talk Posts: 56 Blog Entries: 1 • browse Dead Pool Fixes: 3 Public Playlists: 5 • browse Profile Views: 8896 Highest Ranked Comments Member's Highest Rated Videos |
Videos Submitted by James Roe
edit: it does bother me a bit that you seem to accuse me of lying though, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. See what a nice guy I am
In reply to this comment by James Roe:
Yeah I knew that you read it after down voting, but I saw your name prior to the comment about it. Just pointing out that you made a comment about it while in full knowledge of why I did it. As if you were tttttrolllllllinggggggg!!!!
//the above should be read as if I'm not trying to start some shit... just wanted to drop a boxy reference like it was hot.
Ultimately though the issues with videosift performance have more to do with the amount of dynamic data on the page. Take a look at just this page, there are over 100+ comments, numerous users, and 5 or 6 distinct sidebar data panels. That's a lot of querries to run regardless of the hardware.
Those are the things I wonder about. Is this kind of data being cached on the server when, let's say, I preview the comments of a thread and then decide to open the thread itself? See, normally and by judging the quality of some of the aspects of this site, I would assume that it is greatly optimized in that area. Then I see things like "Search by Channel" or an automatic check for dead embeds completely missing and I start wondering. I mean you got users on this site who are manually going through thousands of sifts, checking each and everyone of them for availability and marking them as dead, not to speak about the people who visit the pages of dead videos, having all the data, such as comments and sidebars and such loaded for them so they can stare at a broken embed message.
There are other things that I feel are missing from this site, but they would probably generate even more costs and I guess that's not worth talking about at this point.
Please understand that I say all this in good spirit. I'm not trying to shoot anyone down. I have nothing but respect for the architects and maintainers of this site and community.
In reply to this comment by James Roe:
Hey Campionidelmondo,
You are certainly right that there is room for improvement. There will always be room for improvement. I'm just saying that I don't think any large scale website that I know of is running on stock software. I would like to define large scale as more than 80,000 page views a day.
Yes you can certainly bend a CMS into doing whatever you want, but I think you ultimately are losing performance when you do that. Our SQL querries / tables have been optimized to do exactly what we need them to do. If you take the underlying schema for an existing CMS and bend it to your will you are probably also having to do certain things on the back end that destroy any original performance boosts.
Ultimately though the issues with videosift performance have more to do with the amount of dynamic data on the page. Take a look at just this page, there are over 100+ comments, numerous users, and 5 or 6 distinct sidebar data panels. That's a lot of querries to run regardless of the hardware.
I think ultimately a key factor in understanding the need for beefy videosift servers is a quick look at the total number of indexed pages from google. Right now it's hovering just under a million but in reality there are over 3 million possible pages if not more than that. Google will ocassionally trim their results. Anyway you shake it that's a ton of data. You only get about 211,000 for techcrunch.
In reply to this comment by James Roe:
*promote