mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 05:48 PM |
Like the database, how big do you think the "forum" database is for ROBLOX? In terms of bytes.
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 05:55 PM |
Considering OT takes up 91k pages of creators, thread titles, thread replies..
It really depends on the popularity, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got into the terabytes.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
aboy5643
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5458 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:03 PM |
| 7,5 bytes, because there's only seven and a half possible things that OT can be talking about at any given moment in time. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:18 PM |
Terabytes? You really figure?
ROBLOX only has 75M posts.
Let's assume each post on average takes up 512 bytes. ~36GB Lets say each user takes up 512 bytes. (Giant PW hash I hope) We have about 35M users... ~16GB
So about 52GB. And that isn't counting on half of everything being deleted. Idk, I'm just trying to make sense of how much of a forum I can hide in 5MB.
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
aboy5643
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5458 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:20 PM |
@mustyoshi
I don't think that those are very appropriate size numbers and I could almost bet money that there are memory leaks with CD'd threads and retained memory somewhere... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:20 PM |
Not terabytes
But a lot of gigabites
-Meowfer |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:32 PM |
5MB isn't much for a forum.
Still, assuming an average 100 character post + 32bytes of metadata / post, and a big thread table of 16bytes / thread, you can still fit ~30K posts, assuming some overhead cost. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:32 PM |
I'm averaging.
Poster:4 bytes Subject:60 bytes Post: 512 byte average. Views:4 bytes Timestamp:4 bytes Post Type: 1 byte
I think with all the short posts I can just average it out to 512 bytes even.
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 06:35 PM |
"Views:4 bytes"
Shave it down! You only need 2 bytes for that! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tarabukka
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 394 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:00 PM |
| BCy has about ~130k posts, the posts table is about 35-40MB data and a bit more than that for indexes. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:11 PM |
Helpful hint for saving bytes: Store your subjects and posts in a separate table called Text. Also store the hash of that text. Index on the hash. Subject and Body become SubjectID and BodyID. When someone posts something, check if that string hash already exists in Text table (and if that hash matches the same string, just in case of collision). If so, link to the existing Text record, otherwise add one.
When is this useful? Look at the subjects for the posts in this thread. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tarabukka
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 394 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:15 PM |
| But storage space is cheap, CPU, disk and memory bandwidth/speed is comparatively not. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
aboy5643
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5458 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:17 PM |
| Question: Are you new moderators OUR moderators? Cuz we could really use a super moderator who can actually moderate .____. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:23 PM |
@Tobot Thanks. That's actually a good idea. Is that what ROBLOX does?
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:25 PM |
| Probably not considering the forum software is terrible (in all the admins own words). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:27 PM |
Oh lol. Are there any trade offs with keeping the entire forum "database" in memory for fast access vs disk speed? Other than the obvious loss of data should the system crash?
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:47 PM |
| If the database were not in memory all the time it would be too slow to work at all... so there's that tradeoff. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
xSIXx
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 9202 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:48 PM |
| ot and rt must be a big, black scar in the memory. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 07:59 PM |
| Just pointing out, but if a thread hasn't been viewed in a month or more, it's probably not necessary to keep it in memory, and just load it into memory once it's asked for. The delay shouldn't be massively noticeable, and such requests wouldn't happen very often compared to most normal-usages. (If all the thread titles themselves were kept in memory, then viewing the old pages wouldn't take up time at all, but also it wouldn't take up a large amount of memory). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 08:11 PM |
im justing saying it would be really slow if not.
-Meowfer |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 08:37 PM |
@TheMaster >Not writing your own forum software for fun >any yeeer
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Aug 2012 08:48 PM |
@monica: If you run out of space, in memory or on disk, what happens? Memory is usually in lesser quantities and harder to increase.
But it is definitely faster. :-D
A better idea is like what BlueTaslem recommends: store things on disk, but store most recently accessed data in memory.
So, my guess is you're trying to cram a forum into a free 5MB hosting server, am I right? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|