äÄöÖüÜß
Lautschrift
Deutsch
Monophthonge
ɛɪɔɶøʏ
Diphthonge
au̯ai̯ɔʏ̯
Konsonantensystem
çʤŋʃʀʁʒ
Englisch
Monophthonge
ɛɜɪɔʊəɑɐɒæ
Konsonantensystem
ŋθʃʒçʍɹɻɫɾ
Diakritische Zeichen
ˈː
 
NEU
leo-ende

Topic"Die Diskussion zu diesem Artikel ist geschlossen."9 replies    
Comment
I've been following this thread - related discussion: merkwürdige Familiennamen

and I just noticed that the discussion has been closed. It contains exactly 300 postings.

Is a LEO discussion closed automatically after 300 postings? Or does someone do it deliberately? If so, why?
Authoreric (new york) (63613) 31 Oct 11, 17:47
Comment
AFAIK every thread is closed automatically after 300 postings
#1AuthorCeeJayThe1 (764057) 31 Oct 11, 17:49
Comment
This was introduced a couple of years ago because Leo got slower and slower, because many threads had much more than 300 posts, IIRC.
#2AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 31 Oct 11, 17:52
Comment
I wonder why the length of the threads should have any effect on the speed of LEO.
#3Authoreric (new york) (63613) 31 Oct 11, 23:51
Comment
I'm not sure it does any more, but long threads can cause other problems.

The worst one I'm aware of is that people using IE 8 and Windows XP often cannot type text normally in longer threads, because it can take several seconds for the letters to appear on the screen.

related discussion: Problems typing in longer text fields

That problem is fairly widespread and well documented, and is significant even when threads are only 100-150 posts long; but the LEO team has seemed unable to address it so far.

The 300-post limit, in contrast, isn't really a serious problem, since anyone can always start a continuation thread on the same topic. If you think there's interest in Merkwürdige Familiennamen 2, you could start it yourself. Just be sure to link to the previous one. (-:
#4Authorhm -- us (236141) 01 Nov 11, 00:50
Comment
The length of one thread will normally not have an effect on the speed of "LEO".

But when there are a considerable amount of threads, read simultaneously by many people, it means that somewhere, something is to dig out of a database one threat at a time and to deliver it to a software-system which will create representations of each of those threads to be send out somewhere over the internet.

A considerable amount of huge threads will in consequence have an effect on the speed of "LEO".

Ich bin aber nicht sicher, was sonst noch sichergestellt sein muss, damit die Beschränkung der angefragten und gelieferten Datenmenge eine „positive Wirkung“ entfalten kann.
#5Authoroops. (237995) 03 Nov 11, 09:08
Comment
@ The length of one thread will normally not have an effect on the speed of "LEO".

Ich kann mich erinnern, dass im Crossover Chat öfter mal Leute mit langsamen Rechnern (älteren Laptops) darüber gejammert haben, dass sie bei langen Threads sehr lange Ladezeiten haben und darum gebeten haben, bereits in der Mitte der Zweihunderter in einen neuen Thread zu wechseln.
#6Authormanni3 (305129) 03 Nov 11, 12:14
Comment
Actually, I think I understand it now. The reason is simply that it takes longer for a website to format and display a long page than a short page.

Presumably the LEO software stores messages in the form of a structured database, not as an already-formatted web page. So order to create the page in HTML format for a user's browser to display, the LEO software needs to retrieve individual messages from the database and format them. And of course, that takes longer for a long thread than a shorter.
#7Authoreric (new york) (63613) 03 Nov 11, 19:31
Comment
Das ist nicht das wichtigste Problem, glaube ich. Ich habe gerade einen 300er Faden gemessen, und das sind 360 KB, der Server kann dafür ein paar Millisekunden brauchen und für die Übertragung über UMTS kommen dann 6 Sekunden hinzu.
Aber dann muss der Browser alles aufbereiten, und das wären bei reinem Text wieder bloss ein paar Millisekunden. Leider gibt es aber mehrere Javascript- und andere Routinen (Ajax?) die den ganzen Inhalt noch einmal einlesen und irgendwie bearbeiten, und die scheinen zT. bei einer Mausbewegung oder Zeicheneingabe wieder von vorne abzulaufen.
Deshalb braucht es mit dem langsamen Rechner (600MHz mit wenig Speicher) extra bis zu 10 Sekunden bevor ein langer Faden wirklich da ist und vielleicht noch einmal soviel wenn ich etwas darin schreiben will.
Mit dem schnellen Rechner (2,8 GHz mit viel Speicher) ist diese Wartezeit nur noch eine halbe bis eine Sekunde oder so.
#8AuthorMarco P (307881) 03 Nov 11, 22:11
Comment
@Marco P:

I think you're right. I just checked the size of this thread - related discussion: merkwürdige Familiennamen

The full page would be 37 pages, if printed. The HTML is about 360K (97 pages if printed). These are quite large for a single web page, and particularly on slow computers, everything adds up.

I agree that a big computer (LEO's computer) can do this all quickly. But we don't really have any good estimates of the size of LEO's servers, or what's the processing demand - how many simultaneous users, how many requests per second, what other jobs are running on the same computer. Possibly all that, added together, might slow things down noticeably in times of heavy volume.
#9Authoreric (new york) (63613) 04 Nov 11, 09:11
i Only registered users are allowed to post in this forum