CloudatCost Connection Slow
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Given what you pay for the service it's not at all.
^^This.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Given what you pay for the service it's not at all.
^^This.
This is a business-level service. 48 hours is not an acceptable response time if the case is put in as high priority. I get the cost is low, but with that kind of support it's hard to take them seriously as a business solution. FWIW
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@JaredBusch said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Given what you pay for the service it's not at all.
^^This.
This is a business-level service. 48 hours is not an acceptable response time if the case is put in as high priority. I get the cost is low, but with that kind of support it's hard to take them seriously as a business solution. FWIW
Support cost more than the actual product in most cases. You need to look somewhere else if you are looking for a business-level service.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Aaron-Studer said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
No, it's been 2 hours for a ticket I put in as high priority, as it's performance-related. Still no word.
Normal response time is 48 hours, regardless of priority.
That's ridiculous...
Given what you pay for the service it's not at all.
Seems completely reasonable to me.
-
So they've increased the RAM and they didn't do it to 2GB but rather 4GB!
I'm a very happy man right now!root@thanksaj-server-cac:~# free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3953 432 3520 53 31 183 -/+ buffers/cache: 217 3735 Swap: 953 0 953 root@thanksaj-server-cac:~# grep MemTotal /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 4047952 kB -
Boom! See, good customer service strikes again
-
How is the speed looking now? Looks like it has not had time to cache your resources yet.
-
Nice! Upgrade++
-
So I tested the site from multiple browsers and made sure to clear the cache on two of them (IE and FF) and just did incognito in Chrome and it's loading in a couple seconds now. MUCH BETTER! Thanks everyone, and especially CloudatCost!
-
My guess is that some combination of MySQL and Apache were unable to cache all of their content. You had memory being maxed out, but not over taxed, so those subsystems were not "expanding into free memory" to leverage RAM. So they were running from disk instead of from memory.
The additional of an extra CPU helps too. Rarely do workloads run ideally from a single thread. Having two threads lets there be a lot less context switching (a LOT less) while getting better cache hits.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
My guess is that some combination of MySQL and Apache were unable to cache all of their content. You had memory being maxed out, but not over taxed, so those subsystems were not "expanding into free memory" to leverage RAM. So they were running from disk instead of from memory.
The additional of an extra CPU helps too. Rarely do workloads run ideally from a single thread. Having two threads lets there be a lot less context switching (a LOT less) while getting better cache hits.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense.
