Thread: System Performance

It may be marginally faster - but for example, I just timed from clicking on the reply button to when this box came up, and it took twenty seconds. I also measured the time to go to each page in this thread - average around thirty seconds. While I did not actually time it before, the subjective impression is no change.

About three weeks ago I doubled the speed of my plan to 1Mbps/500kbps (and speed tests confirm it is actually somewhere near these figures). But unlike other websites, AULRO has remained pretty much at dialup speeds - Last month I got "shaped" (which is why I changed plans) and with this site could not tell the difference.

I have discussed the matter with my ISP, and they suggest the problem with this site may be that it has an unusually large number of separate parts, so that with a latency of around one second, this is what causes the slow performance.

For comparison, while waiting for one page to come up from AULRO, I can download a page from the weather bureau that contains half a dozen satellite pictures - and still have time to spare.

John

Thanks, now that I have been through quite a few pages I find the speed a vast improvement over the past few days. Erich

The poll is now closed however there is a noticeable improvement at my end given the general vagaries of the net at large

Well done Inc., that'll blast through those web requests

Originally Posted by JDNSW

It may be marginally faster - but for example, I just timed from clicking on the reply button to when this box came up, and it took twenty seconds. I also measured the time to go to each page in this thread - average around thirty seconds. While I did not actually time it before, the subjective impression is no change.

About three weeks ago I doubled the speed of my plan to 1Mbps/500kbps (and speed tests confirm it is actually somewhere near these figures). But unlike other websites, AULRO has remained pretty much at dialup speeds - Last month I got "shaped" (which is why I changed plans) and with this site could not tell the difference.

I have discussed the matter with my ISP, and they suggest the problem with this site may be that it has an unusually large number of separate parts, so that with a latency of around one second, this is what causes the slow performance.

For comparison, while waiting for one page to come up from AULRO, I can download a page from the weather bureau that contains half a dozen satellite pictures - and still have time to spare.

John

is the nature of this style of software.

satellite will suffer badly due to the latency. dial up would be quicker to start but longer to download due to the volume of data.

dynamically loading pages have much more overhead than a static page with only the odd image updating every few minutes.

Originally Posted by incisor

is the nature of this style of software.

satellite will suffer badly due to the latency. dial up would be quicker to start but longer to download due to the volume of data.

dynamically loading pages have much more overhead than a static page with only the odd image updating every few minutes.

Thanks. Does not seem to be much I can do about it then.

You are right, the satellite is a lot faster than the dialup for loading things like pictures, but overall the results are pretty much the same. I've tried using a variety of browsers, but as expected, it makes no difference.

John

One thing i discovered just now, is if i use Internet explorer i don't have FORUM JUMP, BUT, if i use Firefox I do, BUT and there's more, this is only happening at home

Baz.

Howdy Inc , Not sure if i am repeating what others are saying but the last night or so It seems to be taking awhile between clicking on a thread and it loading up . I'm with AAPT at 512 speed and have a D-link dsl-302G modem ..... so could it be my set up ?