Time to build a page? Rv!

Hi
How can I script a "This page took 2 seconds to build" type script.
I'm having major issues with my host right now and want to gather
more evidence. My scripts as stupidly simple but pages are taking
over 5 seconds to trigger on one domain, yet are instant on another
domain at the same provider. (Seperate servers, same room.)

There's got to be an easy way to do this.... :)
Thanks.

Robert

Tis OK. I've found a script.
Now the problem I have the the hosts server is telling me the
pages is taking anything from 0.02seconds to 18seconds
to build the same page. All page timers jump all over the place
pretty much every single request.


And they call themselves FASThosts.... I know another word
with F in it that suits better. This has been ongoing for a week
now and the problem I have is they see it, then report it fixed
when it's no better.

If I get any more of this crap I'll script the page to send them an email
every bloody time it takes 3s+!

Arrrrghhh. Going mad(der)!

Robertv!

Rv! wrote:

> Tis OK. I've found a script.
> Now the problem I have the the hosts server is telling me the
> pages is taking anything from 0.02seconds to 18seconds
> to build the same page. All page timers jump all over the place
> pretty much every single request.
>
>
> And they call themselves FASThosts.... I know another word
> with F in it that suits better. This has been ongoing for a week
> now and the problem I have is they see it, then report it fixed
> when it's no better.
>
> If I get any more of this crap I'll script the page to send them an email
> every bloody time it takes 3s+!
>
> Arrrrghhh. Going mad(der)!
>
> Robertv!

Why not just take your business elsewhere? regardless of what the code
is if sometimes it takes .02secs and others it takes 18secs then there
is a big issue there, sounds like they are running a 10Mbps lan with
5400rpm ide hard-drives.

Flamer.

"Flamer" <die.spam@
> Why not just take your business elsewhere? regardless of what the code
> is if sometimes it takes .02secs and others it takes 18secs then there
> is a big issue there, sounds like they are running a 10Mbps lan with
> 5400rpm ide hard-drives.

I've threatened with that.

After setting up the build-time finctuon I've called them (at 0130hrs no queues!)
and spoke to someone. I sent him to a diagnostic page I'd build and demonstrated
that the server was taking on average 2 seconds to script. Another of their servers
was taking +-0.005seconds for the same script. They rebooted the server,I watched it die.
It came back up (same box) and it's averaging +-0.005seconds now.
Let's hope that's it fixed.

I was thinking they must be getting DOSed but maybe not. Anyway, that simple
script seems to have proven to then what the were not understanding for a week.
I'm keeping a log on the server that'll be emailed to me every 6 hours for reference.

Righty, I feel I've "solved" a big issue so I'm off to kip.

Robertv!

Message-ID: <79exg.106970$wl.8412@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk > from Rv!
contained the following:

>
>"Flamer" <die.spam@
>> Why not just take your business elsewhere? regardless of what the code
>> is if sometimes it takes .02secs and others it takes 18secs then there
>> is a big issue there, sounds like they are running a 10Mbps lan with
>> 5400rpm ide hard-drives.
>
>I've threatened with that.

They just know it's not easy moving a lot of sites.
>
>After setting up the build-time finctuon I've called them (at 0130hrs no queues!)
>and spoke to someone. I sent him to a diagnostic page I'd build and demonstrated
>that the server was taking on average 2 seconds to script. Another of their servers
>was taking +-0.005seconds for the same script. They rebooted the server,I watched it die.
>It came back up (same box) and it's averaging +-0.005seconds now.
>Let's hope that's it fixed.

On past performance I wouldn't hold your breath. Is this a 'doze box?
--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@
> On past performance I wouldn't hold your breath. Is this a 'doze box?

It is.... The problem returned again interestingly enough after the guy in
Tech stopped watching the time page, as shown here in the log below.

I'm chasing their ass again right now.


Tuesday 25th July 2006 6:47:47 ------------ 3.00213503838 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 6:37:37 ------------ 2.62601113319 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 6:27:18 ------------ 4.50200891495 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 6:17:05 ------------ 2.81641793251 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 6:06:59 ------------ 1.78056716919 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 5:56:47 ------------ 2.24199199677 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 5:46:41 ------------ 3.00029182434 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 5:36:34 ------------ 1.13630199432 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 5:26:30 ------------ 0.749613046646 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 5:16:25 ------------ 2.05922579765 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 5:06:13 ------------ 4.68552088737 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 4:56:02 ------------ 2.25591993332 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 4:45:52 ------------ 1.13200306892 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 4:35:45 ------------ 3.00209712982 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 4:25:40 ------------ 0.00659799575806 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 4:15:36 ------------ 3.00203299522 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 4:05:30 ------------ 0.00684213638306 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:55:29 ------------ 0.421977996826 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:45:26 ------------ 0.00605201721191 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:35:24 ------------ 0.187302112579 as requested by 80.192.28.132
It run for 2 hours like this........
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:26:13 ------------ 0.00581502914429 as requested by 213.171.193.254
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:25:22 ------------ 0.00582814216614 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:16:12 ------------ 0.00578713417053 as requested by 213.171.193.254
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:15:22 ------------ 0.0062940120697 as requested by 80.192.28.132
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:06:13 ------------ 0.00628113746643 as requested by 213.171.193.254
Tuesday 25th July 2006 3:05:22 ------------ 0.00580501556396 as requested by 80.192.28.132

Message-ID: <e_lxg.107018$wl.18399@text.news.blueyonder.co.u k> from Rv!
contained the following:

>"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@
>> On past performance I wouldn't hold your breath. Is this a 'doze box?
>
>It is....

The fasthosts reseller package is very appealing but basically it's a
cheap product. I've had less problems with the Linux boxes but
presumably they are run by more clueful staff

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

> The fasthosts reseller package is very appealing but basically it's a
> cheap product. I've had less problems with the Linux boxes but
> presumably they are run by more clueful staff

I've kicked thei ass a bit today and succeeded in getting a change
to the linux servers. They have identified a single server is responsible
for the problems and say that someone is running a rogue script that
is pulling huge processor power, hence the speed issue. They're going
to track this down and disable it. However I'm now in Linux so
the problem is gone for me at present. Since i'm on Linux now I've
also got the advantage of GD libraries to play with so that'll be some
fun for later.

Off to relax...

Rv!