rejetto forum
Software => HTML & templates => HFS ~ HTTP File Server => RAWR-Designs => Topic started by: parade on November 16, 2007, 06:17:20 PM
-
Hi,
when I try to search there is nothing happening. I get 100 % CPU Load. The Browser doesn't respond and HFS doesn't respond.
Greetings
parade
-
That means that the search is working properly, and that hfs is trying to search through your entire server. If you have alot of files, this might take a long time. But after a few searches, the waiting time should be decreased.
-
That means that the search is working properly, and that hfs is trying to search through your entire server. If you have alot of files, this might take a long time. But after a few searches, the waiting time should be decreased.
I navigated to a subfolder with only a few files and activated Search , files, from current directory.
Why should HSF search through the entire server?
-
Its the default setting, no matter where you currently are, hfs will search the entire server.
-
Its the default setting, no matter where you currently are, hfs will search the entire server.
But don't I change the default settings if I change the search parameters of the search menue in the template as there are
- folders
- files
- both
- recursive
- from root directy
- from current directory
-
Ye the default setting my form has, is the same effect as ?search= , this is normal behaviour, can you provide specifications on your pc? This information will help rejetto. You can be sure its not the template but HFS causing this. HFS has to search through your database recursively, which uses cpu power, I do not feel it, i only have an AMD 2.2ghz 3500+ if you have less, it might effect you.
I can provide instructions to remove search for people with slow computers, though it is a shame to remove such nice feature :) i say upgrade those computers ;D
-
It is a know fact that doing anything recursively in hfs will take a lot of cpu power but I have only seen Giant Eagle's computer freeze up when doing anything recursive and that was recursively listing his hdd. If your only searching the current folder and it doest have many files it sounds as if you have got a really old computer. So i agree with what TSG said and ask you to post your specs up and that might be able to help rejetto.
-
can you provide specifications on your pc? This information will help rejetto. You can be sure its not the template but HFS causing this.
I think the power of the PC is not the issue. My PC is certainly not up to date but an Athlon XP 2600+ isn't so slow.
When I got no response from HFS I noticed, that the harddisk was not working at all. I waited for about 10 minutes, then I shut down the task.
In the meantime I tried some searches and they did work. But once in a while there is no response.
Till now I cannot see any systematic behaviour.
-
It must be your computer hardware. My computer runs 2 sata drives with the processor mentioned above and most searches work fine. It is the only way to search and searching will use resources, it is not a simple task to iterate through lines of text. Rejetto has tried his best to minimise the effects. And yes anything below 2ghz is so slow :D (to my knowledge that processor is 1.6ghz and about 6 years old).
-
And yes anything below 2ghz is so slow :D (to my knowledge that processor is 1.6ghz and about 6 years old).
In fact it is exactly 2 GHz. ;)
-
search doesn't seem top be working nothing comes up when you hit search
i can leave it wait there for hours on hours and nothing with one directory with 30 things in the directory please help thanks
-
what does the log in hfs say when you try?
What build are you using?
Do you have Recursive listing enabled? (Menu > Virtual File System > Enable Recursive Listing)
-
I don't buy the argument that the PC is to slow and is the cause of the slow searches mentioned in this thread.
The slowest PC I have is a PII-300mhz that I use mainly for storage. Now if you want old and slow, this is it! I tested using this PC and HFS 2.3 build 145 with default template. I did a search for mp3 files scattered among many folders on different drives and ended up with 749 search results. It took only 7 seconds to complete.
The problem with slow searches might be template related.
-
How many files/folders had to be recursively listed for the search to work? I ask this because a while ago me, tsg and GE all tried to recursively list our hdd's and GE who's computer is quite old and slow 500mhz I think took close to 20 minutes where as my 2.4ghz processor took roughly 1min to list about 120k of files.
-
How many files/folders had to be recursively listed for the search to work? I ask this because a while ago me, tsg and GE all tried to recursively list our hdd's and GE who's computer is quite old and slow 500mhz I think took close to 20 minutes where as my 2.4ghz processor took roughly 1min to list about 120k of files.
In the search I did above, it consisted of 2 main folders on 2 different drives. There were a total of 86 sub-folders (some real, some virtual) with a total of 749 files taking up 2.37 GB. As I mentioned before, the search took 7 seconds.
-
I think he was asking how many results you would get searching for "*"
-
It took only 7 seconds to complete.
The problem with slow searches might be template related.
1. Did your HFS already have the search cached? I find it quicker the second time round.
2. Impossible that it is template related. Unless it is HFS struggling to generate a html page to send to the user. If that is the case, templates like live and terayon will take longer than tog, there is a lot more characters/table row in those 2 templates.
Foggy's results are the same as mine. GE, Foggy and I all basically hammered each others HFS for about half an hr to test this feature, it is definitely CPU related. It took me about 4 minutes to recursively show results of my entire PC... close to 200k files it think. There is no way to reduce this, it is the reason why servers need a lot of processing power.
We need to set up some controlled tests. I have a lot of time on my hands but my internet is capped. Maverick if you use msn add my email that is on the forum. I think we should all run controlled tests with different templates and print out results, Mythbusters style.
-
I was more or less asking about how many files hfs had to search/list in the recursive search/list.
Some controlled tests are good idea. after this week I'll have plenty of time on my hands, yay school holidays. :P
-
If you are going to do any testing use a common template - the best I can suggest is the default "plain jane" template and everybody has it. If there is a huge difference in results between the default template and a customized template, the problem might be somewhere in the customized template.
I know with my customized template, the same mp3 search takes a few seconds longer because some of my mp3 files include the mp3player. I know this and can account for it.
I just ran the same test on the PII-300mhz machine and this time it took 9 seconds with the same 749 files 2.37 GB search results. This answers TSG caching question. Sorry not on msn. I'm not saying that there is no cpu power involved. Sure there is. When a search is being performed 100% cpu is being used, but in these search tests that lasts only a few seconds. See attachment showing cpu activity while searching server for mp3 files.
I logged in the server as guest when I searched for mp3 files. Cleared cache & restarted browser. I searched for * to give you an idea of the total folders & files searched through and the results are: 97 folders 3239 files - Total: 2.66 GB for the guest access level on my server right now. This search took 16 seconds. This answers foggy's total folders/files question. (attachment below).
I didn't mention this, but these tests were done locally.
-
I have a theory that its not the recursive search, but the html page generation done by HFS once it has the results, this has been seen with folders that contain a lot of files. I know for a fact that one of my wallpaper directories with about 200 files takes a lifetime to load if it hasn't been opened for a while.
I think there is 2 problems occurring at once, 1. the recursive search using 100% cpu, 2. hfs trying to generate a html page to send. The results indicated from your tests prove that having more characters, it takes HFS longer to generate the page.
-
I have a theory that its not the recursive search, but the html page generation done by HFS once it has the results, this has been seen with folders that contain a lot of files. I know for a fact that one of my wallpaper directories with about 200 files takes a lifetime to load if it hasn't been opened for a while.
We differ here. I have a wallpaper folder with almost 1600 files and it loads in a few seconds. (all jpg). Actually they were included in my test above when I did a "*" search.
I think there is 2 problems occurring at once, 1. the recursive search using 100% cpu, 2. hfs trying to generate a html page to send. The results indicated from your tests prove that having more characters, it takes HFS longer to generate the page.
I agree that the more there is to display, the longer it will take to load the page which I would say is normal behavior. But in my tests that only accounts for a few seconds more not the big time lag mentioned in other parts of this thread.
I don't know what else to tell you guys. You have a bottleneck somewhere.
-
A bottleneck? hmm.
I just searched my entire HFS vfs for ".jpg" and HFS sat at 100% for... a lifetime... ;) :D both tog and terayon do this. The HFS default on the other hand returned results within a few seconds... this is why i think it is the html page generation. Here is some examples of the different code sizes for a table row.
Default template:
[file]
<tr><td>%new% %protected% <a href="%item-url%"><img src="/~img_file" /> %item-name%</a>%comment%<td align=right>%item-size%<td align=right>%item-modified%<td align=right>%item-dl-count%
ToG template:
[file]
<tr onmouseover="onTR(this)" onmouseout="offTR(this)">
<td class=fcl>%protected%<a href="%item-url%"><img align=top src="/~img_file" alt=""> %item-name%</a>%new%%comment%</td>
<td class=icl><div class=ht><b>Hits:</b> %item-dl-count%</div><b>Size:</b> %item-size%<div><b>Age:</b> %item-modified%</div></td>
<td class=qcl style="text-align:center"><a href="%item-url%" class=mp3>Download | <img src="/~img33" alt="DL" align=top></a></td>
</tr>
Terayon template:
[file]
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="background" height="64"><a href="%item-url%" class="messageimagelink"><div class="noIcon"><img src="/~img_file" class="image" alt="" border="0" /><span class="extension"><script type="text/javascript">writeExt("%item-ext%");</script></span></div></a></td>
<td width="100%"><div class="forumlink fileLink"><a href="%item-url%">%item-name%</a></div><span class="genmed" style="width:85%;">%comment%</span><div class="minHeight"></div>
<div class="gensmall fileStats"><span style="width:125px;float:left;"><b>File Size:</b> %item-size%</span><span style="width:65px;float:left;"><b>Hits:</b> %item-dl-count%</span><span style="width:200px;float:left;"><b>Date:</b> %item-modified%</span></div></td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" class="qrow"><div class="quicklinks"><div class=q1><a href="%item-url%" title="Download this file"><div class="dow-a"> </div></a></div><div class=q2><div class="emp"> </div></div></div></div></td>
Live 2:
[file]
<script language="javascript">var file_name = "%item-name%";var folderpath= "%item-folder%";var file_url= "%host%"+folderpath+file_name;filename = remplace("html",file_name);fileurl= remplace("url",file_url);fileurlstream = remplace("stream",file_url)</script>
<script language="javascript">
{document.write('<table id ="table_normal" style="width: 99%; border-style: solid; text-align: left; height: 22px;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" onmouseover="this.id=\'table_over\';" onmouseout="this.id=\'table_normal\';" onmousedown="this.id=\'table_down\';" onmouseup="this.id=\'table_over\';" onclick="window.location=\'//'+fileurl+'\'" ><tr>');filetypes(filename,fileurl); document.write('</a></td><td style="height: 58px"><a href="//'+fileurl+'" id="item_headertext">'+filename+' ');}
</script>%new% <br/><script language="javascript">
var showhide = readCookie('showhits');if (showhide == 2){showtime = "none";showhits= "none";}else if (showhide == 1){showtime = "visible";showhits= "visible";}else {showtime = "visible";showhits= "none";}document.write('<span id="Opb" name="Opb" style="display:'+showtime+'"><font id="item_smalltext">%item-modified%<br id="item_smalltext" /></span>%item-size%<span name ="Op" id="Op" valign="bottom" style="display:'+showhits+'; font-style: oblique; padding-left: 7px">%item-dl-count% '+txt_visits+' </span></font></a><br /><span id="Op" name="Op" style="display:'+showhits+'">');
</script><span id="item_smalltext">%comment%</span></span></td></tr></table>
The way i see it is, the larger a table row is, the longer it takes for hfs to cache up a html file to send the browser. This is a serious problem, cause in the future more complex templates are to come, I feel the ToG compared to other sites i have built is extremely lightweight considering the amount of features it has. And for a program so dynamic in nature with its possible uses, i feel that this process needs to be worked on. It is also apparent when opening a large directory of files, not only when searching, thats just triggered a noticeable effect.
-
So it is a template issue. I may be wrong, but the no thumb image and your quicklink section might be slowing up things as a new connection might be needed for each instance.
-
the same gif file in an html is downloaded only once, even if used 100 times
-
It must be your computer hardware. My computer runs 2 sata drives with the processor mentioned above and most searches work fine. It is the only way to search and searching will use resources, it is not a simple task to iterate through lines of text. Rejetto has tried his best to minimise the effects. And yes anything below 2ghz is so slow :D (to my knowledge that processor is 1.6ghz and about 6 years old).
I knew that my computer is not so slow. ;)
After 3 weeks without any searching, I tried it again today.
All results come within some seconds. When I tried it last time I got no result at all, maybe because I wasn't so patient to wait more than 10 Minutes.
So what has changed?
If I remember right it's only the HFS-Build. Today I switched to the new Beta Build 160.