tomfmason

99.9% of the time when a host offers packages like that they are infact over booking their servers and are banking on the fact that a large majority of their clients will never use 10% of what is alloted. I know this from personal and professional experince. There is really no way that a company could make any money(or least not enough to make the hassle worth it) by offering that amount of services and not over book their servers. Most companies that do not have an oc-38 connection or higher pay between $10 and $30 per mbs per month. So there is really no way that they could offer 3000gb (10mbs)monthly transfer to a shared hosting client and stay in business.

I have had two dedicated servers and shared hosting with them in the past. I didn't really use the shared hosting much so i can't really say much about that. The dedicated servers performed exactly as expected though. The only problem that I have ever had was setting up a rails app on their shared hosting for a client. That was a real pita but other than I think it is a decent host.

There is a two page thread on this subject here

As redbullmarky said, you are completely wrong on that one. I can't really speak for the other admins but when someone tries to suck up to me(never happened here) I get suspicious of what their true intentions are. Each and everyone of the mods have earned their position and have proven them selfs many times over. I am not a mod but that seemed very offensive. Which mods do you think are not "smart"? Actually, I would have to say that most/all of them are a lot smarter than both me and you.

Say you have 500 users online and are sending a request every 5 seconds. That is 12 requests per minute per user or a total of 6000 requests per minute. 360,000 requests per hour in that situation seems like a lot but... I guess I could be wrong. Just as an example say each request is a total transfer of 500bytes(0.5kb) that would be 3mb per minute, 180mb per hour and 4.3gb transfer per 24 hour period. For a high load site that little request every 5 seconds could get very expensive. Not to mention the added strain on the server from all of the extra requests. Maybe "thousands per second" was a bit of an over exaggeration but not by much.

No, gmail uses a push server of some kind. Basically the process works like this: 1) Client requests webpage where a small flash file is loaded. 2) The flash file establishes a connection with a socket server. 3) Once the connection is established the client is assigned a unique id (e.g. session id) 4) If a new email is received the data is sent to the socket server and then sent to the flash file connected via xml socket. 5) I use AS3 so I would use ExternalInterface to call a javascript function to display the new data. IMHO, this is the best route for high load sites. This would cut the server load down considerably and doesn't require thousands of requests per second. I have worked on/with a ruby project called juggernaut that does exactly this. This could be done with php but, from what I have seen, php is not really a good language for socket servers. They are pretty intense on the system resources. Juggernaut uses eventmachine which is c based but with ruby wrappers.

sounds like you need a server alias(ServerAlias Darylmahar.com) for dm.northernlightstech.com or a proxy. If they have mod_proxy enabled(I doubt it) you could use a proxy rewrite like this: RewriteEngine On RewriteRule ^(.+)$ http://dm.northernlightstech.com/$1 [P,L]

Really??? Didnt think that would ever happen. Time to look at a bigger server I guess donate enough for better server and we will

This is completely off subject. Your original post was asking a question that could have easily been answered by a quick search. topic locked.

But who knows, maybe they will implement it. imho, it is a really bad practice to make edits to an application's core like that unless it is absolutely necessary for it to function properly. The main reason is that it will make future updates a real pita. We would have to keep a copy of the release that we are currently using and diff the production copy against the original. Then we would have to compare that with any new releases. So, we have opted to forgo this by keeping the edits limited as much as possible. I generally group features by Must Have, Should Have, Could Have and Wont Have. As far as the forums are concerned if it doesn't fit into the first group it is most likely not going to happen. It would be completely different if we were the developers behind smf.

checkout jsflowchart. I doubt that you are going to find exactly what you are looking for but that is a good start.

It doesn't validate. I saw about 300 validation errors. You may want to consider xhtml transitional instead of strict.

I agree with The Little Guy for the most part. However, I can see legitimate reasons for using pre-built cms if: 1) it is a simple site and needs to be pushed online quickly 2) you can't really hand code it your self 3) you have a client that thinks they need it otherwise I say write it your self. edit Also, I think one of the quotes in my sig applies nicely to this situation and most sites built off of applications like that:

I am currently working on a social networking site based off of drupal. Let me tell you now.. I could have hand codded all the functionality needed in a 10th of the time it took me to learn the odd naming conventions(amongst other things). Sadly, a lot of opensource php applications are very poorly written and can make what should have been a simple task hard to accomplish. So, IMHO, if you have a site that requires a large amount of custom functionality and breaks outside the cookie cutter mold you may be better off writing it your self. It may save you time, money and headaches in the end.

You could also use cygwin under windows and have everything available to you in windows that you would have in a linux distro

I am also a big fan of debian based distros but I end up using CentOS for almost everything except my personal server and sites.

This is really dependant on how fast you learn. PHP was my first language so it took me longer to learn. One of the biggest milestones is getting to the point where you understand what is really happening behind the code. I half agree and half disagree with that. Focusing on a specific area would have some merit but, imho, it is important to be well rounded. You need to be very careful with what you decide to focus on as things in this industry can quickly become outdated. I personally like to keep up on what will/could/should be the next big thing. I can write efficient code in 6 languages but would only consider my self really good in 1(ruby). I find that I learn new languages/concepts/development methodologies faster now that I have a broader skill-set. IMO, this really helps when you are confronted with new and difficult situations.

yes it can and I would recommend mozilla rhino for anyone that is interested in playing around with it.

Although I love ruby and the rails framework this has almost nothing to do with php. btw, you could also do: arr.each {|item| puts item} That example does the exact same thing as the first and only contains 24 characters. The php example is well over 30. That is a very simple example but overall I find that I write 30%(or so) less code. Anyone that says "Show me what ruby can do that php can't" simply doesn't understand ruby. Several of the most popular php frameworks were based off of rails. That has to mean that they did something right, right? Most things in ruby can be replicated with php(checkout cakephp's credits and php on trax) but most of the time they will result in 20% to 30% more code. With that being said this is not a ruby or a rails forum. Maybe this discussion would be better served else where. If you really want to find out what can be done with ruby/rails, drop by #rubyonrails on irc.freenode.net and ask them "What can ruby do that php can't" .

I have been working with rails for almost two years total and the past year almost exclusively. The ruby language and the rails framework are, for lack of a better term, elegant. However, one of the biggest draw backs is the performance. As with most things, you end up giving up performance for convenience. One of the main things that attracted me to rails was the fact that it is extremely easy to scale an application up/down depending on the current load requirements. As with most frameworks, it will also drastically cut back on the overall development time for an application. With experienced developers, you can develop complex applications in a relatively short period of time. With hardware being cheaper than man hours it makes a lot of sense from a business point of view. btw, checkout http://railscasts.com

I added all of the old avatars back and will be looking into some additional avatar packs.

I haven't yet but I will. It sounds pretty cool.

I wouldn't do that. Use an sql dump instead. Here is a batch file I just wrote that is based off of a tutorial by phpfreak sql_backup.bat @echo off call mysqldump --opt -c -e -Q -u %1 -p%2 %3 > %4 Usage: sql_backup mysql_user mysql_pass database_name output_file To make it more automatic you could add a scheduled task that would run that script every x hours or whatever. This also assumes that you have C:\path\to\mysql\bin in your path.

You don't have to have clear:both you can do something like .container{ width:100%; display:block; overflow:hidden; } .left{ width:30%; float:left; display:block; } .right{ width:69%; float:right; display:block; } <div class="container"> <div class="left"></div> <div class="right"></div> </div>

I have written a few proof of concept apps with Air but not anything production worthy. I found the documentation to be decent but, imho, it could be much better.