35 replies to this topic

[recifbox]

Well first of all i'm in France so here the reboot is at 10h00 Am, is it possible to locate all user that pay the chat services to be on a same timezone server and get a reboot for example at 4h00 AM.

Because after the reboot we get trouble during the hour that follow, random kick, no access etc... and at 11h00 user could use it as normal, so if the reboot could be shifted at 4am for us euro user we will no see this "stability trouble"

[Artax]

Yeah the server reboot for us non-yanks is rather inconvenient.

Though I don't think there would be any way to opt-out of a reboot or have completely separate server times/states for different countries.

[Lindy]

While we do charge for some IP.Chat packages, the service is primarily a value-added service and is not a profit maker for IPS. Geographic based chat servers would require a significant investment and as such would require a significant fee increase. If that's something that warrants further consideration, we would be happy to review it further. Currently, the maintenance schedule is arranged around the majority of the userbase.

I will see if any advancements can be made to minimize the impact of the maintenance. Thanks for your inquiry.

[Nils]

This reboot is a major issue for me as well, please fix this! Changing the geographic location, while important for performance, would not even be necessary - just give us the option of choosing between two time slots for the reboots, one for the US and one for the EU.

[Dmacleo]

that assumes the servers are configured to host according to geography.
most likely users from all over are on each server.

[Nils]

Yes, but I assume this is something that could be arranged. They would just have to ask the costumers when setting up chat whether they want to be placed on a server that restarts at ~2am US time or ~2am EU time.

Either way, we have to find some sort of solution for this. The server restarts in the middle of the day (and the hour of technical glitches usually following) are extremely disruptive and not just a minor technical issue. It was also not disclosed to us in any way when we purchased the package.

[Dmacleo]

solution is to not offer it IMO, for about the same price add-on chat is much better.

[⚔ Kirito]

While we do charge for some IP.Chat packages, the service is primarily a value-added service and is not a profit maker for IPS. Geographic based chat servers would require a significant investment and as such would require a significant fee increase. If that's something that warrants further consideration, we would be happy to review it further. Currently, the maintenance schedule is arranged around the majority of the userbase.

I will see if any advancements can be made to minimize the impact of the maintenance. Thanks for your inquiry.

Excuse me if I'm derailing the thread here a bit, but I've been curious..

What's the main reason we can't self-host IP.Chat?

I'm aware it may not be ideal for shared hosting, including IP hosted forums, but for those with dedicated servers or even simple VPS' for smaller forums, it should be a trivial task.

I'm not entirely familiar with how IP.Chat operates, as I do not use it, but even if it required a bit extra work and effort to set up I wouldn't entirely mind.

[Nils]

solution is to not offer it IMO, for about the same price add-on chat is much better.

Doesn't that require Java though? And how well does it integrate with IP.Board? Are users automatically logged in, can mods automatically ban people and so on?

It might be worth trying out if IP.Chat continuous to have these issues.

[bfarber]

Excuse me if I'm derailing the thread here a bit, but I've been curious..

What's the main reason we can't self-host IP.Chat?

I'm aware it may not be ideal for shared hosting, including IP hosted forums, but for those with dedicated servers or even simple VPS' for smaller forums, it should be a trivial task.

I'm not entirely familiar with how IP.Chat operates, as I do not use it, but even if it required a bit extra work and effort to set up I wouldn't entirely mind.

The resources necessary and skill (in terms of server setup and optimization) required to set up the backend is far beyond what the majority of our clients have available. This is not something we are prepared to make available (and thus support) at this time.

[⚔ Kirito]

The resources necessary and skill (in terms of server setup and optimization) required to set up the backend is far beyond what the majority of our clients have available. This is not something we are prepared to make available (and thus support) at this time.

I figured that would be the response. I don't know exactly how complex the setup for it would be, however, what if you released it but made it unsupported? An IP.Extra that people can use but know they won't get any (official) support for.

Even though only a smaller amount of clients would be able to take advantage of it, I'm sure it would still be greatly appreciated by those few.

I guess it might be a lot of effort to go through though.

[Michael]

I figured that would be the response. I don't know exactly how complex the setup for it would be, however, what if you released it but made it unsupported? An IP.Extra that people can use but know they won't get any (official) support for.

Even though only a smaller amount of clients would be able to take advantage of it, I'm sure it would still be greatly appreciated by those few.

I guess it might be a lot of effort to go through though.

What would happen? People would complain that their questions about it go unanswered. Or people on shared hosting which could not support the resources necessary to run this would use it and would take down the entire server with their increased resource usage.

[⚔ Kirito]

What would happen? People would complain that their questions about it go unanswered.

Like they do with the rest of the IP.Extra's? It shouldn't make a difference. Unsupported is unsupported.

Or people on shared hosting which could not support the resources necessary to run this would use it and would take down the entire server with their increased resource usage.

If you're using a shared hosting service where you can take the entire service down like that, you're using a pretty terrible host to begin with. You'd likely be suspended, yes, but again, your own fault.

The shoutbox app can be resource intensive as well. That doesn't mean we should ban that item from the marketplace because it might cause problems for boards using shared hosting services. It's generally not allowed on IPS hosting from what I've read, which is understandable.

I simply run an IRC network on my server with an Ajax IRC web client. I have no issues. I also make good use of Ajax in several areas of my board. I can do this because I run my own dedicated server and pay for the hardware capable of this overhead. I also paid hundreds for the software because I wanted to be able to run my site how I saw fit.

I'd consider "the amount of time and effort required to make this service compatible for local use would be too significant to warrant it being done for the few that would really be able to take advantage of it" a much more acceptable reason, because I can understand that. I didn't pay for IP.Board for IP.Chat, it's just an extra I don't have to and don't really want to take advantage of.

[recifbox]

well the main focus stay this stability issue after the reboot at 10h00AM (local), it's 10h14AM and near all people on chat have been kicked randomly twice each.... and by miracle at 11h00 this funny "feature" will stop lol

[Yuxi]

It's even worse now because the licensing server appears to be down, and people who get disconnected can't rejoin due to the 5-user limit.

I actually like IP.Chat despite its lack of multiple-room support and such, but the frequent stability and connection issues are really ruining it for my community.

[Michael]

Like they do with the rest of the IP.Extra's? It shouldn't make a difference. Unsupported is unsupported.


If you're using a shared hosting service where you can take the entire service down like that, you're using a pretty terrible host to begin with. You'd likely be suspended, yes, but again, your own fault.

The shoutbox app can be resource intensive as well. That doesn't mean we should ban that item from the marketplace because it might cause problems for boards using shared hosting services. It's generally not allowed on IPS hosting from what I've read, which is understandable.

I simply run an IRC network on my server with an Ajax IRC web client. I have no issues. I also make good use of Ajax in several areas of my board. I can do this because I run my own dedicated server and pay for the hardware capable of this overhead. I also paid hundreds for the software because I wanted to be able to run my site how I saw fit.

I'd consider "the amount of time and effort required to make this service compatible for local use would be too significant to warrant it being done for the few that would really be able to take advantage of it" a much more acceptable reason, because I can understand that. I didn't pay for IP.Board for IP.Chat, it's just an extra I don't have to and don't really want to take advantage of.

You can try and come up with justifications all you want, it's still not going to happen. Just because you think it will work because you want it to doesn't mean IPS will do it.

[⚔ Kirito]

You can try and come up with justifications all you want, it's still not going to happen. Just because you think it will work because you want it to doesn't mean IPS will do it.

I simply asked a question. I even stated above that I understand it's likely not something that would be considered worth doing for the few that could take advantage of it. I don't expect it to be done, it was merely a question out of curiosity.

I'm not sure what your problem is or why you're acting so hostile over something so mundane, but you do not need to act like a jerk to everyone who posts something you don't like. I'm pretty sure you don't work for IPS either, so you don't decide whether or not something is going to be done.

I also clearly stated that..

it's just an extra I don't have to and don't really want to take advantage of.

So no, I do not expect IPS to make this because I want it because, first, I don't want it, I was just asking a question. Second, I understand it's improbable for commercial software, it'd cost them time that's likely better spent elsewhere. Please keep your attitude in check.

[recifbox]

hmm... is it possible to come back to the main topic ? the schedule time of this reboot for non us-owners ?

[bfarber]

hmm... is it possible to come back to the main topic ? the schedule time of this reboot for non us-owners ?

It's something being discussed internally, but there's nothing for us to report yet.

[recifbox]

Ok thanks on this because it's an appreciate feature on my site and as i payed this services and want to upgrade it to the max user capacity i want to be sure this "issue" could be addressed