ethanb wrote:I found it browsing through taisha variations - one pattern was played with minor variations in only 3 games, but in places where all the "next moves" were the same move, or if I went to a track with only one game, the ghost stones weren't rendered.
Right now I have it set to stop showing the averaging when there's fewer than 5 games to average together. I'm not sure, but it sounds like that is the cause of what you're seeing?
Yeah, I guess so (did that behavior change some recently? When I made that initial post, it seemed like the trigger was different) I guess I don't understand why this is a feature and not a bug.
kokomi wrote:Hey, i like it. But it's a bit slow? Or maybe my internet is slow
I seem to recall you're in China-- if so, you're a loooong way from the server, which could explain it. Unfortunately there wouldn't be much I could do about that at the moment.
It's pretty slow for me too, and I'm from Germany. After a click it takes about two seconds for the stone to appear. My ping to dailyjoseki.com is 170ms and I'm using opera 10.60.
Hm, each click right now requires about 20-40k of html as a response from the server, that's probably the source of Li Kao's slowness if not kokomi's. There are a few things I can try to do to get that reduced to a more reasonable number. I'm guessing it goes a lot faster if you get to a position that doesn't show the ghost stones?
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
If you consider wine to be convenient, IE seems to at least work in it. I used playonlinux to install it without the fiddliness of setting the twiddly bits manually, and it seems to at least run.
I'm not sure if this works for the most recent versions.
daniel_the_smith wrote:Hm, each click right now requires about 20-40k of html as a response from the server, that's probably the source of Li Kao's slowness if not kokomi's. There are a few things I can try to do to get that reduced to a more reasonable number. I'm guessing it goes a lot faster if you get to a position that doesn't show the ghost stones?
maybe you can make it memorise somewhere, so when someone makes a request by moving a stone, it will load from memorise, rather than do all the process again? And at the back of it, you can add the requests into your database. hmm.. anyway, i'm very noob on computer...
kokomi wrote:maybe you can make it memorise somewhere, so when someone makes a request by moving a stone, it will load from memorise, rather than do all the process again? And at the back of it, you can add the requests into your database. hmm.. anyway, i'm very noob on computer...
It sounds like you're talking about caching-- I believe the slowness is caused by the total amount of data that needs to get sent, not the server processing time, so I don't think that would help in this case.
I enabled compression on the test server, which packs things down quite a bit. Can those of you in China and Germany (or anywhere else) tell me if
I notice no real difference. Feels like the one at :80 is even a bit faster, but probably they're about the same. And a few dozen kB shouldn't take much time. I normally can DL about 1MB/s.
Do either of you (or anyone else someplace distant) have the firebug extension to firefox (or equivalent) installed? It has a net panel which breaks down the time spent waiting. I'm curious if the majority of the time for you is spent "waiting" or "receiving". When I run, I see total times 200-600 ms, with the majority spent "waiting".
I will have to add some profiling to the server just to make sure it's not something about my code, but I don't see why my server would execute slower for you than me...
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
OK, I've figured out what's taking the time, and yes, it is the server. I've done one thing that makes a slight improvement (dailyjoseki.com:30080 if you want to check). I will probably have to change the way I'm doing things a little (I'm stressing out golang's template package ) to get the speed I'm after. It is handling most requests in < 400ms (which I consider hideously slow, but better than the 600ms it was); if two people are using it at the same time, it will obviously be slower.
Also on the 30080 test server: I've added IE's filter:alpha(x) (still untested) and removed the 5 game minimum requirement for showing ghost stones. I'm not sure if I like that or not, it's kinda distracting when it shows two games and you're trying to decide which stones go with which game. I didn't have it enabled originally because I figured five games is probably not a very representative sample. I wouldn't mind hearing people's thoughts on this.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
I just a have a mild bug to report. When browsing through a variation and hitting 'pass,' and then hitting 'back' (the website's back button, not the browser's), the website takes you back two moves (the move before the pass) instead of just taking back the pass itself. I think it would make more sense to simply take back the pass. Also, if you play a variation and then pass -> respond -> back, the website takes you back to before the pass.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, do you understand what I mean?
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.
I just a have a mild bug to report. When browsing through a variation and hitting 'pass,' and then hitting 'back' (the website's back button, not the browser's), the website takes you back two moves (the move before the pass) instead of just taking back the pass itself. I think it would make more sense to simply take back the pass. Also, if you play a variation and then pass -> respond -> back, the website takes you back to before the pass.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, do you understand what I mean?
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I will change that, most likely when I get back from go congress.
everyone:
I updated the main server (the :30080 server is no longer running). IE should work now (still untested but I'm emitting the right thing now, I think). I found a way to shave 100-200ms off each request, so it is slightly faster.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
