# The Time Has Come: Getting a new server



## Mike Bobbitt

I think everyone will agree that server stability has become a problem we can no longer ignore. As a result, I've come up with a plan that should see us through an upgrade for at least the next 12 months.

*Summary*

Migrating to a new server has two parts: the up front cost to "rent" a server, and the hourly rate to run it. As we run the server 100% of the time, we pay more up front to lower the hourly rate, as this generates significant savings over time. Previously, we rented a server with a 3 year term, and are just entering the final year. (So we are 2/3 through that rental agreement.) Given the issues we have had I think that 3 years is too long a term, or we have to greatly over-engineer the next server we select to see us through significant growth.

Choosing a 1-year term means that we have the flexibility to migrate again in 12 months to a more appropriate server for our needs at that time, but also incurs the up-front cost annually. We end up paying more per month and more each year with the up-front cost, but it means we can migrate without penalty to match our utilization. The up-front cost for the new server we are considering is just under $1k, taxes in.

I believe we can absorb the moderate increase in monthly costs (about $40/month), but we will need to fundraise for the up-front costs.

Our current target is to raise the $1k for the up-front costs, however if we end up raising more than the target we may be able to go up another tier and give us more room for expansion. I'm going to give it a bit of time and scrutinize the books to see how far we can make things stretch. I'd really like to see us move to a reliable long-term platform if possible.

*Details*

For those who want to see the numbers, here they are.

[ Updated details here ]



Current Specs

Server type: Amazon EC2 m1.large
7.5 GB RAM
4 (2 core x 2 unit)
160Gb disk base storage
64-bit architecture
Network: Moderate / 500 Mbps

Proposed Specs

Server type: Amazon EC2 m3.xlarge
15 GB RAM
4 vCPUs
80Gb SSD storage
64-bit architecture
Network: High / 1000 Mbps




Current Costs (monthly)


Data Transfer: $60.45
EC2 m1.large server platform: $37.44
Storage/backup: $27.66
Total Monthly Cost (current): $125.55

Proposed Costs (monthly)


Data Transfer: $65
EC2 m3.xlarge server platform: $54.02
Storage/backup: $45
Total Monthly Cost (proposed): $164.02


This is not a significant increase from the current cost ($40 / month), but it does imply that we pay the $1k up-front cost every year. That means banking some cash so we don't go without service or pay the top per-hour rate when the current contract runs out.

We also have to accommodate traffic growth. When we started on this server 2 years ago, monthly traffic was 123 Gb. Last month it was 540 Gb, and I expect it will continue to increase at a steady rate. We have exceeded the traffic cap for our plan, so each Gb costs. The plan must include some leeway for covering increased traffic costs, in addition to measures I have taken server-side to reduce traffic.

So, that is the plan in a nutshell, I would be happy to answer questions or explain further. Thanks again for your patience through all this, I hope to have things on track again soon.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks for all the hard work and electron wrestling, Mike - a bit of PayPal love to help out inbound.


----------



## NSDreamer

I've been hiding in the corners long enough, I echo milnews sentiment, expect inbound when I get home from work! 

 Keep up the good work Mike!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Thank-you Tony! And with that folks, we are on the way. I'll track our fundraising progress here: http://army.ca/php/server.php


----------



## Edward Campbell

Count me in, too, Mike; I just made my donation.

ERC


----------



## mswirski

Have you considered options outside of Amazon EC2? 

In particular, I'm a big fan of Linode (https://www.linode.com/pricing) , and in practice they can be setup to behave quite similarly, where extra 'linodes' will be recruited to deal with spikes in traffic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

EMT inbound Mike.


----------



## dapaterson

*For those looking for a link to donate*


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

mswirski said:
			
		

> Have you considered options outside of Amazon EC2?



I have, and nothing is "off the table." Most solutions I've checked into so far aren't priced competitively with the Reservied Instance option Amazon offers.



			
				mswirski said:
			
		

> In particular, I'm a big fan of Linode (https://www.linode.com/pricing) , and in practice they can be setup to behave quite similarly, where extra 'linodes' will be recruited to deal with spikes in traffic.



Linode definitely bears some investigation, thanks for pointing me in their direction! I've created an account and will see if they fit the bill. At first blush, they appear to be inexpensive and powerful. Their simplicity (E.G. SSH only access and basically no support) is fine with me.


----------



## ModlrMike

Sent something your way.


----------



## expwor

I'm not much of a poster, more a consumer and enjoy reading the various boards.  That said, next week (payday) I'll fire something in via email money transfer

Thanks

Tom


----------



## Old and Tired

Hey Mike

Once again, I'm in. shoot me PM and I'll do the same as last time.

Hugh


----------



## CBH99

Hey Mike,

I'll happily throw some $$ your way!!

The forums & your hard work are MUCH appreciated.  The forums are definitely a part of my daily life.  Always enjoy waking up to them & peaking at them throughout the day.  

$$ inbound.  



Cheers,
CBH99


----------



## The Bread Guy

Just a bump to remind you:
1)  we came up with the first $1000 here in something less than a few hours;
2)  is it worth a few bucks to you to get even better Milnet.ca/Army.ca/Navy.ca/AirForce.ca connectivity?

C'mon, you KNOW you can help do it!  Thanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Just a bump to remind you:
> 1)  we came up with the first $1000 here in something less than a few hours;
> 2)  is it worth a few bucks to you to get even better Milnet.ca/Army.ca/Navy.ca/AirForce.ca connectivity?
> 
> C'mon, you KNOW you can help do it!  Thanks.




Yes, indeed milnews.ca; we haven't had _Routine Orders_ for about a year now - and they're not missed, Mike, they were mildly interesting but not worth the time and trouble you took to collect and publish them - but back the, Spring 2013 and earlier were we showing a consistent "active member" base of 1,500 to 1,700. Surely 1% (15 of us) can cough up $100.00 each, and 30 more (2%) can give $50.00 each and 60 can send $20.00 and maybe a few can sign on as subscribers, and get some free Army.ca _swag_, too.

I remember discovering Army.ca ten years ago ... it was a revelation then, a web site with (mostly) serious discussions about the military, national defence and related social, political and economic issues. It remains _sui generis_ today; there is not, I think, anything quite like it.

I'm proud of the *9* symbol beside my name. It means that I do a bit - not much, not as much as Mods, like you, for example - where I can to help keep this treasure "on the air." It would be a shame if a few of us, say a hundred, couldn't help Mike to keep this site going for the thousands who use it. We need to recognize that not all members can afford $20.00 or $30.00 but those of us who can should.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

EMT sent


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Thanks all, for the overwhelming support.

As you can see, we blew past our initial objective pretty quickly, and are now working on an intermediate/final objective. (I think I've been doing too much ATOC reading!)

The new target is as follows:



Current Specs

Server type: Amazon EC2 m1.large
7.5 GB RAM
4 (2 core x 2 unit)
160Gb disk base storage
64-bit architecture
Network: Moderate / 500 Mbps

Proposed Specs

Server type: Amazon EC2 m3.2xlarge
30 GB RAM
8 vCPUs
160Gb SSD storage
64-bit architecture
Network: High / 1000 Mbps




Current Costs (monthly)


Data Transfer: $60.45
EC2 m1.large server platform: $37.44
Storage/backup: $27.66
Up Front Cost: $1,200 for 3 years
Total Monthly Cost (current): $125.55

Proposed Costs (monthly)


Data Transfer: $65+
EC2 m3.2xlarge server platform: $106.58
Storage/backup: $45
Up Front Cost: $1,772 for 1 year
Total Monthly Cost (proposed): $216.58


As we don't have enough usually in the coffers to cover $216 / mo I'm trying to buffer that by making it to a point where we can bank some of that cost in advance. You'll also note the "up front" cost goes up by $500, but more importantly, is a 1 year vs. 3 year reservation. Going with the m3.2xlarge server for 3 years is a whopping $2691. Not sure we can get there but if we do, we will have a pretty firm hold on our future.

Again, thanks to everyone who has contributed. I realize each person's situation is different. While some have been overwhelmingly generous, that is certainly not the expectation. Whether you can chip in a bit or not, even the moral support goes a long way.


Thanks
Mike

(All prices are USD)


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

As a side note, I just realized this is topic # 115,100 and reply # 1,309,124 (roughly). It's no wonder we are outgrowing our current digs.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Some additional analysis, as we get closer to our goal.

If we are targeting m3.2xlarge, which roughly quadruples our capacity in the important areas, we have two options:

Option 1: The 1 Year Commitment route gives us a monthly cost of about $365. At the end of the 1 year, we are free to move on to a bigger/better platform, but will need to pay the up-front cost again.

Option 2: The 3 Year Commitment option is $272.35 per month, and locks us in to that price for 3 years. The downsides are that the up-front payment is significant ($2691 vs $1772) but this is balanced by the fact that we don't need to make another lump sum payment in a year.

Note that both option 1 & 2 include additional charges of $65+ and $45+ per month for traffic and storage costs above those included in the plan. These prices also differ from the above ones because I have "amortized" the up-front cost over the 12 or 36 month plan. This is not entirely accurate - we will owe the full up-front cost on day 1 of the changeover - however it helps for planning purposes and comparing apples to apples.

Option 3 which is still on the table, is Linode. An equivalent server is their 32 Gb Linode, at $350 / month. This is on par with Option 1, but requires no up-front commitment and actually offers a more powerful server than the other plans. Alternatively, we could go with the $175 / month Linode. This per month cost is in line with our current costs at Amazon, but gets us a server that is a bit better than 1/2 the power of what we are considering as an upgrade. (It's more in line with the m3.xlarge, not the m3.2xlarge offering.) It is still roughly "twice the server" that we have now.

The math, for those who are interested:

Option 1: ( $1772 + 365 * 24 * 0.146 ) / 12 + 65 + 45 = $364.25 per month

Option 2: ( $2691 + 365 * 24 * 3 * 0.12 ) / ( 12 * 3 ) + 65 + 45 = $272.35 per month

Option 3: $0.48 / hour = .48 * 365 * 24 = $4204.8 / 12 = $350.40 per month


----------



## GAP

Instead of having to do massive fund raisers, why not add a category of "builder" subscriber. 

Price it a somewhere around $50.00/year in addition to the annual subscription rate. 

It wouldn't offer anything additional, except to those dedicated members who would like to see the site maintained and grow. That way the "builder" $$ could be set aside for stuff like this.

 :2c:


----------



## Flavus101

GAP said:
			
		

> Instead of having to do massive fund raisers, why not add a category of "builder" subscriber.
> 
> Price it a somewhere around $50.00/year in addition to the annual subscription rate.
> 
> It wouldn't offer anything additional, except to those dedicated members who would like to see the site maintained and grow. That way the "builder" $$ could be set aside for stuff like this.
> 
> :2c:



Having multiple tiers of subscriber levels is an interesting idea.  :nod:

A question to Mike, how difficult is it to transfer the site from the current servers to Linode servers?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Having multiple tiers of subscriber levels is an interesting idea.  :nod:
> 
> ...




It is, but I would worry about _classifying_ us by our ability to send money rather than by our willingness to help it all the ways we can: most important by being Moderators, also by making good, helpful posts and also, indeed, by sending money when it's needed ... I think it's important that Moderators are clearly visible as Directing Staff, I think we can all identify the regular participants in discussions - some of us are members, some veterans and a few are even fixtures or legends   , and I, personally, think it is sufficient to show that some people can and do support the site. I'm not sure making some more 'important' because of how much they send compared to others would achieve much.


----------



## Flavus101

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is, but I would worry about _classifying_ us by our ability to send money rather than by our willingness to help it all the ways we can: most important by being Moderators, also by making good, helpful posts and also, indeed, by sending money when it's needed ... I think it's important that Moderators are clearly visible as Directing Staff, I think we can all identify the regular participants in discussions - some of us are members, some veterans and a few are even fixtures or legends   , and I, personally, think it is sufficient to show that some people can and do support the site. I'm not sure making some more 'important' because of how much they send compared to others would achieve much.



By having a separate "Builder" subscriber that is more or less creating a tier above the current subscriber, no? I agree with you completely on being cautious, we have to be careful with how much we label people through monetary donations. I think that is why there is a set subscriber rate and then if people feel as if they wish to give more to the site they can use the donate feature. (Correct me if I am wrong, I am not exactly sure how that system works). 

You now have another subscriber Mike! Army.ca has been a huge help to me and it has been a very enjoyable time.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

I've thought about multiple subscription tiers in the past, but going the other way. The thought is to offer a $10 tier that does not provide the goodies (shirt, badge), but does allow the user to support the site and tout the Subscriber badge. The general idea there is to make it more widely accessible. I still think this may be viable; when we are in need, it seems the majority of those who provide support are the same ones that did the last time (and the time before). That's not a bad thing, but I hate to keep leaning on the same group over and over.

Maybe I've had too much exposure to sales folks, but their notion of prioritizing "new business" makes some sense. You can't keep milking the same crowd and expect to grow. You need to expand, even if by small amounts.



			
				Flavus101 said:
			
		

> A question to Mike, how difficult is it to transfer the site from the current servers to Linode servers?



Moving to Linode is definitely more work than moving to a new EC2 server. In the latter case, I literally image, restore and assign our IP address to the new more powerful server. For Linode, it's more of a "build it piece by piece in parallel until it looks the same" scenario. The cutover process involves propagation delays that can be measured in days in some cases. The actual difference in my time is probably 3-6 hours vs. 3-6 days, and in downtime it would be hours vs. days as well. (Your mileage may vary, of course, depending on caching, etc.)

Although not identified as a factor in previous posts, cutover time has definitely been in the back of my mind.


----------



## Flavus101

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Moving to Linode is definitely more work than moving to a new EC2 server. In the latter case, I literally image, restore and assign our IP address to the new more powerful server. For Linode, it's more of a "build it piece by piece in parallel until it looks the same" scenario. The cutover process involves propagation delays that can be measured in days in some cases. The actual difference in my time is probably 3-6 hours vs. 3-6 days, and in downtime it would be hours vs. days as well. (Your mileage may vary, of course, depending on caching, etc.)
> 
> Although not identified as a factor in previous posts, cutover time has definitely been in the back of my mind.



Thanks for that! Do you feel the Linode server would be able to handle our current traffic and provide enough growth for the rest of the year if things stay on the current pace?

What I liken this to is buying a house. Let's say you want to get a nice house for your wife and you, this means you will need enough room for two people. Eventually you have a family and that means you need room for 4. The kids move out and now you have a bunch of wasted space...

The problem I see with getting a three year term is that a lot can change in three years. Growth may be exponential and we run out of room again a year and a half in. Growth could die down and we are now running a server that is 3x more powerful than we need for a lot more money. My train of thought is to eventually get to this m3.2xlarge server, but to have a sort of bridge server in between. If we can run the Linode for a number of months until it maxes out than switch to the Amazon we would be using money more effectively. The biggest question is how long we can run on the Linode before needing to switch to a bigger server.


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is, but I would worry about _classifying_ us by our ability to send money rather than by our willingness to help it all the ways we can: most important by being Moderators, also by making good, helpful posts and also, indeed, by sending money when it's needed ... I think it's important that Moderators are clearly visible as Directing Staff, I think we can all identify the regular participants in discussions - some of us are members, some veterans and a few are even fixtures or legends   , and I, personally, think it is sufficient to show that some people can and do support the site. I'm not sure making some more 'important' because of how much they send compared to others would achieve much.



I don't  think there is any need to identify those that build, other than maybe a note somewhere pointing out that there are xxxx number of members and subscribers who belong to that group with thanks. Personally identifying someone is just not on.


----------



## Kat Stevens

A little something sent, get yourself something nice.


----------



## Rifleman62

Mike,

Interac e-Transfer sent this a.m.

Thank-you for all you do.


----------



## my72jeep

Sorry, every  cent spoken for this month will send same as last time on June 2nd. Money well spent.
M


----------



## expwor

Payday today, donation inbound

Tom


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Folks, a quick update on this. I fell behind due to unexpected events, but we are back on track. I tentatively plan to perform the upgrade tomorrow morning, assuming I can get everything lined up correctly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mike there is no reason to apologize, the fact that you are working on this at all right now is deeply appreciated.


----------



## Journeyman

I _definitely_ prefer the "Go grab a coffee" screen to the "database error" one    :nod:


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I _definitely_ prefer the "Go grab a coffee" screen to the "database error" one    :nod:



Would make a nice screensaver....... ;D


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

OK, migration is complete. Any coffee you are required to take from here on out is voluntary. 

Please let me know if you have any problems or see anything that just doesn't quite look right.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## kratz

Enjoyed the message and coffee break. Much better than the old 404 screen.  ;D


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

If you need a break any time, it's available at http://coffeebreak.army.ca


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thanks Mike, especially at this time. 

Now, let's hope it does the trick for a long while.

Great job.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

I've been watching things in the background, and there is a definite performance improvement. It's going to take some fine tuning on my end to get things right, but it is definitely an improvement.

I'll outline the changes, since they are "none of the above" as listed previously.

Instead of throwing more power behind the existing server (which handled everything), I decided to split out the database onto a dedicated server. So Army.ca now runs over 2 servers, one (the front-end) handling the web server, scripts, content, etc. The new server (db.m3.large) is dedicated to storing and managing all the data.

So when you make a post, you invoke a script on our front-end server, which captures the text and stores the actual content on the back-end server. When someone else comes to read that post, essentially the same process happens again, this time to fetch the data.

This division of duties allows each server to focus on it's task only, and when one gets bogged down, it doesn't affect the other. A side-effect of this is that the current server has not been replaced or upgraded at all. It just has less to do now. This means that the original "reserved instance" (which you will recall is paying a fee up front to pay less over time) expires on 2015-05-03. I've also purchased a reserved instance for the new back-end server, which now expires on 2015-06-12.

This secures our place for the next year, but allows us also to expand the capabilities or one or both servers in a year's time.

That is, it should fit our needs now but doesn't lock us in and prevent further growth.

Thanks again for your support and patience through this, it would not have been possible otherwise.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## GAP

Good............now you have about 8-9 months to set up a build fund of say.....$50.00 each. This will allow you to go into the next renewal with $$ in hand, whether it is simply a renewal of what we have or an upgrade. 

What you don't use of the annual builder's fee (voluntary) gets put aside to accumulate for the next year.  The site is growing, as are the costs. You are gonna need it. 

Just to be clear.......the builders fee is voluntary and in addition to the subscription fee. 

It's the cost of one short pub crawl.


----------



## Edward Campbell

GAP said:
			
		

> Good............now you have about 8-9 months to set up a build fund of say.....$50.00 each. This will allow you to go into the next renewal with $$ in hand, whether it is simply a renewal of what we have or an upgrade.
> 
> What you don't use of the annual builder's fee (voluntary) gets put aside to accumulate for the next year.  The site is growing, as are the costs. You are gonna need it.
> 
> Just to be clear.......the builders fee is voluntary and in addition to the subscription fee.
> 
> It's the cost of one short pub crawl.




 :bravo:    :goodpost:    :nod:      :cdnsalute:  etc, etc, etc.

Count me in, too, Mike.


----------



## WPJ

Great decision Mike you have done an outstanding job. This will make future upgrades easier.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Folks, in about a month's time (03 May), our current server lease will expire, and so we need to make plans to ensure we not only have a server, but are not rushed into a poor decision from an economical point of view. With that in mind, I've taken some time to update the notes posted previously here, to include our current setup and a proposed option. All prices are in USD except where converted:



Current Specs

Server type: Amazon EC2 m1.large
7.5 GB RAM
4 (2 core x 2 unit)
160Gb disk based storage
64-bit architecture
Network: Moderate / 500 Mbps
Database Server: db.m3.large
Database Storage: 20Gb

Proposed Specs

Server type: Amazon EC2 m3.xlarge
15 GB RAM
4 vCPUs
2 x 40 Gb SSD storage
64-bit architecture
Network: High / 1000 Mbps
Database Server: db.m3.large
Database Storage: 20Gb




Current Costs (monthly, based on March 2015)


Data Transfer: $76.35
EC2 m1.large server platform: $37.44
Storage/backup: $19.80
Database: $92.78
Up Front Cost: $1,200 for 3 years
Total Monthly Cost (current): $226.37 USD or $264.84 CDN

Proposed Costs (monthly)


Data Transfer: $76.35
EC2 m3.xlarge server platform: $43.80
Storage/backup: $39.60
Database: $92.78
Up Front Cost: $1,345 for 3 years
Total Monthly Cost (proposed): $252.53 or $295.45 CDN


So the good news is that the new proposed server has only a slightly higher monthly cost. This is because the costs for traffic and database remain the same, while costs for the server itself and storage go up. (We need additional storage, because the new server comes with faster SSD disks, but less overall space.) It is also an upgrade in terms of the performance specs, which is good.

The bad news is that at this point, it would be a stretch to meet the $300 / month server costs, let alone the $1,345 up front fee. I'm also mildly concerned about the proposed server suiting our needs for 3 years. The current server had a good run, and in the end it's worked out OK, but it is definitely straining at times under the load of our userbase. We have had to separate out our database services and make some (occasionally drastic) changes on the server to keep things chugging along, but we have made it.

All this to say, if you have been on the fence about subscribing, please consider it now, it would be a great help.


Thanks
Mike


----------



## vonGarvin

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> All this to say, if you have been on the fence about subscribing, please consider it now, it would be a great help.


I cannot emphasize enough the point about subscribing.  This site is a gold mine when it comes to information for any person even remotely interested in Canada's armed forces.  The cost per person is meagre, but don't think that you can't make a difference.

If that doesn't work, pay up, or else:


----------



## acen

Gladly jumped into the fray with a subscription. This repository of corporate knowledge is well worth preserving.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If that doesn't work, pay up, or else:


Damn you, Technoviking, stop it, STOP it - I'll pay, I'll pay  ;D

Seriously, TV's right about the value you get.  

I just had all my brakes done, but a few shekels are inbound, Mike - keep up the great work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I had the advertising come up for one day while my new subscription was being processed................worth every penny [for me] to not see that.


----------



## ModlrMike

Renewed today!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Thanks everyone, the support is a definite help! We are well on the way to an improved server that should see us through the next 3 years of growth!

Cheers
Mike


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If that doesn't work, pay up, or else:



Can't beat the original though. I loved that magazine.

Oh yeah, buy a subscription!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Inbound, should take care of the up front cost difference.

Same drill as before.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Contribution sent from TD, with thanks!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Thanks for the support all, we are well on the way for our new server. I have a couple of consulting contracts that should come in to cover off the remaining cost. I anticipate the changeover will happen sometime during the week of 27 Apr, to ensure it all goes smoothly before the current lease runs out.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Folks,

Good news, the server migration is complete, and so far, no significant issues have been discovered. Please let me know if you find anything unusual (that wasn't unusual yesterday too) and I'll look into it. I ended up going down a slightly different path than originally planned, but the end result is the same: a higher performance server than what we had a few hours ago.

Thanks for all your support and patience through the transition.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thanks Mike,

Give a shout if there's anything else.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The site is flying fast.......excellent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Keep getting this when trying new threads. Go 'Back' click again and it's OK.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> Keep getting this when trying new threads. Go 'Back' click again and it's OK.



Having the same problem.



> Database Error
> Please try again. If you come back to this error screen, report the error to an administrator.
> Back


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Hmmm... I'm clearing a few things up, hopefully it will take care of the error.


----------



## George Wallace

Was running into that error quite frequently around three hours ago.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Still doing it. Needed three go backs to get into this thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Hmmm ... it's working fine for me. It's been great for the past few days.


----------



## GAP

ditto....not one problem...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I get it also.........Mike.......maybe just a Moderator problem?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Running into error on and off, too, with a "refresh" allowing me in (FireFox 37.0.2, Windows system).


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

I've seen it as well. No good dead goes unpunished I guess. I'm working this weekend and on the road for the early half of next week, I hope to have a chance to look into it in more detail after that.

Sorry for the issues!


----------



## George Wallace

Seems to be occurring at a high rate for me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Just the Mods, it seems....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Not seeing any errors as a member/subscriber, like you all have stated seems to be a MOD problem..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> MOD problem..



Like we don't have enough of those on our own..... ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Like we don't have enough of those on our own..... ;D



 ;D so true...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

There was a problem in the SQL code (that I wrote) which tracks banned user activity, which explains why only admins could see it. Should be fixed now, I hope...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Seems like that fixed it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Seems like that fixed it.



I believe so. Thx Mike


----------



## George Wallace

Now getting a green screen with only the Navigation bar visible on a regular basis.  Takes a couple of tries to reload or go back to previous page to get back to using site.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Had that a few times also. Not as bad as the previous problem though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Once again, I (a non-Mod) have had no problems at all.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

OK, appreciate the heads-up. I haven't seen that one myself yet. Sounds like it occurs randomly. When it happens next, if you can get the page source (usually CTRL-u) and copy/paste that into a message to me that may help me isolate where the failure is happening.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Cancel that, I just got the screen and am tracking the source...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

...and fixed, I believe.


----------

