Should PN upgrade to a new forum ??

[#1]

You forgot the load balancers from your list.
The Plusnet forum is the ONLY website that I have had to specifically exclude from being accessed via my routers transparent http proxy, due to all the connection error messages and firewall log entries generated.
Do the forum servers really need to exist behind a load balancer ? - the number of active users isn't really very many.
Having said that, I also have a huge number of firewall entries for Plusnet imap server packets that get rejected because they don't match requests from the stateful firewall.  I don't get similar entries from the non-Plusnet imap servers I access,  so again my guess is that the Plusnet load balancer is cocked-up.
If these connectivity issues were resolved, then I would be more inclined to point the finger at the forum software, but the fact that I am logging thousands of erroneous Plusnet packets every day, it doesn't give me much confidence that these problems aren't simply due to dropped packets or broken sequences of packets for both the Plusnet forum and email servers.

[#2]

sorry my bad for not mentioning the load balancer
Which order would you put it in the list

[#3]

I would put it first,  because -
- it is a problem in it's own right (not part of forum software),
- it is measurable (by router/firewall/proxy logs) and therefore we can tell when it's fixed,
- it needs fixing anyway because it affects more than one Plusnet service (e.g. email),
- eliminating it first removes any doubts about connectivity before delving deeper into updating the forum platform (hardware or software).

[#4]

As O'Riley stated
[quote=http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/networking/news/slb_0301.html] So, if the load balancer is only a small part of a bigger whole, why does it get blamed so disproportionately? What is it about load balancers that attracts critics, finger pointers, and naysayers alike? Let's take a look at some of the reasons.
The Blame Game
One reason why people blame server load balancers is that they often do experience more problems with them than with other network devices. There are several reasons for this, but the primary one is that of all the network devices a site might employ, load balancers are typically the newest on the scene. Moreover, manufacturers are competing with each other at a feverish pace. They quickly release new feature-rich versions that aren't thoroughly tested.
Another reason for the blame is that load balancers are not very well understood. Documentation quality varies greatly from vendor to vendor, and there are few third-party resources (O'Reilly and I hope to change that). A load balancer may not be malfunctioning, but if the people configuring the unit don't understand all of the features or troubleshooting techniques, they may unduly lay blame on the load balancer. The old maxim that people fear (and blame) what they don't understand certainly applies here.
Load balancers are also in the direct path of all traffic to a particular Web site. By looking at Figure 2 below, you can see that if the load balancer stops working, the entire site stops working. This critical position in the infrastructure can make it appear as though the load balancer is the problem, even in cases where it is not (such as a firewall issue, a back-end database problem, someone tripping over a cable, etc.). Unlike a broken or malfunctioning Web server, a misconfigured or malfunctioning load balancer will result in a dead-to-the-world site. This is why a firewall is often a suspect, too, but to a lesser degree since it is generally a simpler device than load balancers.[/quote

[#5]

blamed so disproportionately ?
What else could cause the forum network connection to randomly switch IP addresses in the middle of a query ? - triggering firewall logs to be recorded  because of received packets from an address that SPI/NAT didn't initiate communications with.

[#6]

Quote from: Townman

Sorry no offence was intended - generalisations can be dangerous.  I do though believe that this is the expectation of the majority.  What does need to be considered is that only a minority of PN users use the forums. Cost a lot or a little, there is a cost - one has to ask is it truly a priority?  Will forum modernisation really attract more customers, deliver more margin? Cheers, Kevin

not modernisation just a bit of maintenance to fix things like slow attachments.
also my point was that person wouldnt be employed simply to manage a forum server, but they would also be there to fix the backend api issues which I expect affects many customers as well as adding demand to the call queues.
I wont argue on what most people join plusnet for, it probably is low pricing.  Just I am not included in that, I personally joined for the uk support and static ip address.

[#7]

Quote from: purleigh

blamed so disproportionately ? What else could cause the forum network connection to randomly switch IP addresses in the middle of a query ? - triggering firewall logs to be recorded  because of received packets from an address that SPI/NAT didn't initiate communications with.

if thats really whats happening then it is bad configuration, I manage load balanced sites and its trivial to make 'sticky sessions'.

[#8]

At the moment I'm just browsing this forum with my proxy for the site disabled and as usual my firewall log is filling with rejected packets.
This does NOT happen when using ANY other website !

[#9]

We've got a configuration change in review which should fix that issue.  I'm thinking that this will fix quite a few of the oddities (the zero sized reply, proxy errors, stalling when uploading images etc).  Not sure of the release date for the change yet, but will update when we know.

[#10]

Cheers for the update Kelly
I meant to ask
Is this configuration change server side
If so / no
Can you please give some more details, so the left hand understand what the right hand is doing ?

[#11]

Quote from: Kelly

Not sure of the release date for the change yet...

In the interests of Moderator sanity....sooner rather than later please

[#12]

If the problems are causing a lot of extra work for the moderators (duplicate posts) which I understand they are it wouldn't surprise me if they turned round and said enough is enough and stopped moderating until this is resolved!

[#13]

A lot of forums have a flood control feature to stop people posting multiple times within a short space. Wondering if this could somehow be implemented or increased here to alleviate things until the forums are properly fixed.

[#14]

I seem to remember that this one does but only with a very short time fix - these double posts tend to be posted several minutes apart

[#15]

Andy / OldJim,
It is exactly this characteristic NOT working which leads me (in my limited understanding) to believe that this is a load-balancer issue / server farm issue.  Duplicate post inhibition certainly used work.
As I understand matters (which I accept might be wrong) within a transactional system such as this forum, there is an expectation that a request sent to a target service will be appear to replied to by that target, not from some other address.  Further having established a "transaction session" with one target, all subsequent transactions from that client should go to the same target service.
If this does not happen mayhem can ensue where responses appear to come from somewhere not queried and subsequent queries are sent to different locations.  The result is that the service as a whole can lose track of what the clients are doing and in this case, post duplicate posts rather than implement the in-built duplicate post prevention mechanisms.
I might not have explained this very well, but I believe that the principles are right.  In this environment load-balancers need to ensure that each client always connects to the same host server.  Just thinking about it, such considerations are essential for IMAP too.
If I've got this a bit skew, I apologise and hope that Purleigh will be kind enough to clarify as he seems to be one person on here who really understands what is wrong.