The Forums, and new posts.

by **smcginnis** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:30 pm

Since a lot of people seem to be confused about the forums, I'm going to repost my PM to Sava I sent about two hours ago here. Of course, I won't mind if this gets locked or deleted, I'm just doing it so people have a place to discuss it. Here's the PM:

I don't know if it's because there're so many users online today or what, but most of the posts made before 12:00 noon today appear as 'PM', not 'AM', so they keep showing up as unread, even if I log out and log in again. It's not a big problem, and they get marked as read as the time reaches them (for example, it's 7:30 here, and a post made at 6:00 AM this morning, even though it shows up incorrectly as 6:00 PM, is marked read), but I think it should be fixed. Also, for example in this topic (screenshot), Sir Nelson made a post after the two displayed after him, but it (the post) appeared before them.

~smcginnis

by **Bruce N H** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:37 pm

Something's screwy tonight. Troy's looking into it.

Bruce

Edit - the very fact that I can post this means that maybe he fixed the earlier problem. I wasn't able to post a little while ago, but now it seems okay.

Bruce

by **Sir Nelson** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:34 am

smcginnis wrote:Also, for example in this topic (screenshot), Sir Nelson made a post after the two displayed after him, but it (the post) appeared before them.

Actually, I just used ye Royal Time Machine to get jiggy with my posts! :lol:

I hope that the time problem is resolved soon. It does tend to get a little confusing.

And, on a somewhat related note, did we really set a record number of users today? 69? :?:

That seems like a highly unusual number...

by **TheOrk** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:10 am

And, on a somewhat related note, did we really set a record number of users today? 69?
That seems like a highly unusual number...

Seems like it to me.

There were 40ish guests and 20ish uses. :wink:

by **Bruce N H** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:19 am

Hey,

I'm not observing any of the odd forum behavior this morning that I was seeing last night. Troy was working on this when I e-mailed him last night, so hopefully the problems are all gone. Thanks, Troy.

Bruce

by **Recluce** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:37 am

There were a lot of users online yesterday, registered users. However, if there was a glitch it could have read registered users as guests as well, thereby doubling the number. And if you were seen as a "guest" it wouldn't have registered that your account had already read a message. That's my thought, as I too had to look at posts twice.

by **Lonan** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:16 am

Yeah, I looked at posts last night while logged in, and this morning about half of them were still marked as unread even though there were no new posts in the thread. So we might have had some "ghost users". Just in time for Halloween.

by **SavaTheAggie** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:17 am

From my understanding, at some point around 2 pm EST, the server clock jumped forward 12 hours. Troy and I have not figured out just how this happened yet. During that time, people logged in, made posts, and left. Sometime later, the server clock jumped backward 12 hours to the correct time.

This caused time stamps to show future dates, which causes problems. You see, unread threads are marked unread by comparing the date of the last post in the thread to when you last entered the forum. If the last post in a thread is older than the last time you logged in, the server marks it 'read'. Because the post dates were in the future, you could never log in after the post was made and thus it would always be unread until the server caught up to that future date.

Likewise with the number of users. The server logs when you leave, so when the server's time jumped backward to the current time, everyone who had visited the forum during this time discrepency was considered logged in, simply because the records indicated they were still in the forum (last logged in greater than current time).

As for being unable to post due to 'high number of posts', I suspect this problem, too, was caused by a user making a post 'in the future', and then the server was judging their subsequent posts against that future post. Because the timestamp on that 'future' post was greater than the timestamp of any post they were trying to make, users were considered to be spamming (making posts too quickly) and were unable to continue until the server caught up with time stamps.

Hopefully now that the server has caught up, we won't have any future problems.

--Tony

by **Athos** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:00 am

I bet its the lesser known cousin of the y2K bug: the y2K6 bug.

Steve

by **kelderic** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:25 am

Athos wrote:I bet its the lesser known cousin of the y2K bug: the y2K6 bug.

Kelderic

by **Bruce N H** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:48 am

Cool! So I was time traveling last night!

Bruce

by **wunztwice** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:25 pm

Bruce N H wrote:Cool! So I was time traveling last night!

Bruce

Me too! The is really cool.

And Athos, don't you mean the KK2 bug?

Anyways, thanks for looking into it and doing anything you did to fix it. We all are really appretiative.

by **Azaghal** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:19 pm

wunztwice wrote:
Bruce N H wrote:Cool! So I was time traveling last night!

Bruce

Me too! The is really cool.

Not only that, but a user signed up that night under the name of "JohnTitor", a famous (alleged) chrononaut. Coincidence . . . Ha!

by **Sir Nelson** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:37 pm

I'm telling ya... Ye Royal Time Machine really rocks!

by **kelderic** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:22 pm

wunztwice wrote:And Athos, don't you mean the KK2 bug?

That's great.

Kelderic

The Forums, and new posts.

The Forums, and new posts.

Re: The Forums, and new posts.

Who is online