PM Limits Increased by 50%

Cloud

Enjoy!

John.
--

mysql> update usergroup set pmquota=pmquota*1.5 where 1;
Query OK, 8 rows affected (0.02 sec)
Rows matched: 13  Changed: 8  Warnings: 0

seamus

Not that it matters, but my Subscriber limit doesn't seem to have been increased. Or maybe it has, and I wasn't sure of what it was before.

It's currently at 1000.

I don't need anymore space, just FYI.

Nukem

Yeah !!!!!!!!

WizZard

By the looks of the query it's only set up to change the normal group (WHERE 1). I'm presuming Subscribers would use WHERE 10.

Or leave the where out to affect all

seamus wrote:

Not that it matters, but my Subscriber limit doesn't seem to have been increased. Or maybe it has, and I wasn't sure of what it was before.

It's currently at 1000.

I don't need anymore space, just FYI.

seamus

WizZard wrote:

By the looks of the query it's only set up to change the normal group (WHERE 1). I'm presuming Subscribers would use WHERE 10.

Or leave the where out to affect all

No, the where 1 is a traditional thing used basically as a catch all. Writing "WHERE 1" is equivalent to writing, "WHERE true".

What you're talking about would be "WHERE usergroup = 1".

Why "WHERE 1" is used, I don't know, but I'm not an old hand with SQL. I would have written the same query as

update usergroup set pmquota=pmquota*1.5

Anyone know the difference?

WizZard

That's what I thought first of all, but I presumed* MySQL was different, maybe it allows such a variation on the field being modified?

seamus wrote:

What you're talking about would be "WHERE usergroup = 1".

I thinks this would actually be pmquota

Then again, presumption is the mother of all f*ck ups, isn't it

Nuttzz

Yippee!!!

but I delete all my pm's because I heard a nasty rumour (but known to be true!) that admins of vbulletin sites have the ability to read users PM's.... :P

seamus

WizZard wrote:

I thinks this would actually be pmquota

Read it again

Lump

Isn't less more? Will this not just increase the problems with the Database?

John

WizZard

seamus wrote:

Read it again

Ah yes, I can see the confusion. My fault. Originally when I said 'WHERE 1' I meant it to be equivalent to 'WHERE pmquota=1' (See my previous post why). This is assuming that the PM quota field is stored in multiples of 100 i.e. 1 would equate to 100 and 1.5 would equate to 150.
Therefore when you said 'WHEN usergroup = 1' I thought you were referring to my original post (which would have been PMquota). You were assuming that the group number of normal users was 1 instead. My problem was that I didn't think that you can have a field in a table with the same name as the table - I'm still not sure about this. <edit>I've just checked and you can - at least in MS SQL server 2000a </edit>

Sorry for the mix up.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seamus

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ah, there y'go. So we do.

Nice one Cloud.

Hobart

Lump wrote:

Isn't less more? Will this not just increase the problems with the Database?

John

Why?

CuLT

What problems with the database?

po0k

*smack*

billy the squid

CuLT wrote:

What problems with the database?

probably referring to this and this

unkel

Lump wrote:

Will this not just increase the problems with the Database?

My concern too. It's proven to be almost impossible to manage a relatively very small (1 or 2 GB) database over the last few months. Why encourage expansion?

Maybe we all should stop demanding the nigh impossible from the admins, i.e. the getting the server(s) back up after major crashes and db corruptions 24/7/365. What does it cost to host/manage boards.ie professionally?

Surely a few hundred subcribers times €50 plus commercial ads revenue and the google cash would amount to something and would more than cover the basic monthly rate?

The credibility of boards.ie has taken some big hits recently because of unavailability. This will damage potential revenue generation

po0k

Heil!

seamus

1 or 2 GB small unkel? Not the biggest in the world clearly, but not *small*, not even *medium*.

amp

unkel wrote:

My concern too. It's proven to be almost impossible to manage a relatively very small (1 or 2 GB) database over the last few months. Why encourage expansion?

You're exagerating wildly here.

Maybe we all should stop demanding the nigh impossible from the admins, i.e. the getting the server(s) back up after major crashes and db corruptions 24/7/365. What does it cost to host/manage boards.ie professionally?

As far as I'm concerned it is hosted and managed professionally by some of the foremost experts in bulletin board technology. We are lucky that they continue to work for free/relatively little.

Surely a few hundred subcribers times €50 plus commercial ads revenue and the google cash would amount to something and would more than cover the basic monthly rate?

The credibility of boards.ie has taken some big hits recently because of unavailability. This will damage potential revenue generation

My arse, the odd days worth of downtime will only put off around 50 people from signing up. Of those I'd say half would register when the servers back online. And those of us who have been here a while know to be patient. Boards.ie is less of a company and more of number of communities.

Cloud

unkel wrote:

2GB is tiny for a database tbh. I deal mainly with Micro$oft SQL Server and only the smaller client databases I work with are about this size. I've no experience with MySQL though. Open door questions: is boards MySQL up to the latest version and SP? How often is a backup taken and are there problems restoring? Manual restore of a backup that size takes about 30 seconds on SQL Server on a cheapish (€5k) server typically

You're talking out your rear again unkel, I've already pointed out to you elsewhere that 2MB is not the same as 2GB. I'd like to see your 30 second 2GB backup solution.

Lump

He he, even I understand the DB is a mammoth. However I have no idea what increasing the PM would do to server loading, files sizes etc hence I was just asking a question. Sorry if I sounded like I was talking out my ass.... I porbably was. But Unkel made even my newbie-ness sound ok

John

po0k

Cloud wrote:

You're talking out your rear again unkel, I've already pointed out to you elsewhere that 2MB is not the same as 2GB. I'd like to see your 30 second 2GB backup solution.

<Asok> pld Breslin