# Why Hello Error 503!



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 21, 2011)

It seems FA crashed.

Oh woe is us. We are all doomed for the next hour.

Seriously, we need a limit on how to reduce the flood....


----------



## BRN (Feb 21, 2011)

CinoxFellpyre said:


> It seems FA crashed.
> 
> Oh woe is us. We are all doomed for the next hour.
> 
> Seriously, we need a limit on how to reduce the flood....



Why did you make a thread about this, here, and now?

Hit refresh. Problem solved. Of course it'll be slow for a while; four hundred thousand furs with fap withdrawal barging in at once.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 21, 2011)

When you starve furries of their porn things get ugly, it is like allowing a starving man access to a buffet. Furries without their porn with tackle FA once it comes online like this man tackles this horse.


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> Why did you make a thread about this, here, and now?


 Well, I was actually suggesting there should be something to lower the traffic and let it gradually return.

I swear DDoS attacks are nothing compared to a torrent of sexually frustrated furries drowning the site.


----------



## BRN (Feb 21, 2011)

I'll assume you mean 'lower the traffic _so long as I can get mine and fuck the people who miss out_'.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 21, 2011)

The database is weeping in a corner.


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> I'll assume you mean 'lower the traffic _so long as I can get mine and fuck the people who miss out_'.


 Yes and no.

yes cause I wanna see how long it takes for the site to fully crash, and no cause I'm sitting idly by, clicking F5 every now and again.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 21, 2011)

Almost the entire front page is just "Image not found"

Ouch. Is that just me?

THE SERVER HATES YOU ALL. RAARGH.


----------



## WolfGuy100 (Feb 21, 2011)

I got 503 too, damn it. And I was trying to post a damn journal. Geez, admins need to get it right. (No offense to admins.)


----------



## BRN (Feb 21, 2011)

CinoxFellpyre said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> yes cause I wanna see how long it takes for the site to fully crash, and no cause I'm sitting idly by, clicking F5 every now and again.


 
How pissed would you be if FA was up but _you_ were denied access? "Hey guys FAs up but only this particularly country gets access for now, lol"


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> How pissed would you be if FA was up but _you_ were denied access? "Hey guys FAs up but only this particularly country gets access for now, lol"


 Not a big deal, I'm having other things entertain me. Like this forum.

EDIT: I also wanted to put this in off-tpoic but was thinking it'd be wrong forum


----------



## Gizgiz (Feb 21, 2011)

I would love to see some stats about how many pageviews there is per second right now  And bandwidth and stuff ;>


----------



## Aden (Feb 21, 2011)

Did yak not say in the thread that it'll take some minutes for the site to be up to full capacity again?


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 21, 2011)

Gizgiz said:


> I would love to see some stats about how many pageviews there is per second right now  And bandwidth and stuff ;>


 There is a program that is a packetsniffer but it's illegal to use it for anything like the way you'd want to, or any way at all.



Aden said:


> Did yak not say in the thread that it'll take some  minutes for the site to be up to full capacity again?


 I stopped reading it, and I figured hey, why not talk about it, cause I know damn well someone will complain, so I get it before they do.


----------



## Ixtu (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm sad that the outage didn't last longer.
Wanted to build up on stuff to flood.
Aw well, maybe next outage.


----------



## Wet Coyote (Feb 22, 2011)

I've been error/slowdown/503 and such free since I blocked ox.furaffinity.net. Where ever that points, whatever it does, its slow as fug and needs a kick in its nutz... Blocking it did not hurt access or use of FA for me, but stuff loads hella faster and no errors.


----------



## marmelmm (Feb 22, 2011)

Wet Coyote said:


> I've been error/slowdown/503 and such free since I blocked ox.furaffinity.net. Where ever that points, whatever it does, its slow as fug and needs a kick in its nutz... Blocking it did not hurt access or use of FA for me, but stuff loads hella faster and no errors.


 
That's apparently the server for the ads, near as I can tell.  

-MMM-


----------



## yak (Feb 22, 2011)

Gizgiz said:


> I would love to see some stats about how many pageviews there is per second right now  And bandwidth and stuff ;>



The site has an average of ~6k online users (who requested a page in less 15 min ago), with a spread between 10k and 3k.
A statistic taken one morning a week ago shows 1,075,785 pages served in ~7 hours
Bandwidth consumption averages between 120-230Mbit





Wet Coyote said:


> I've been error/slowdown/503 and such free since I blocked ox.furaffinity.net. Where ever that points, whatever it does, its slow as fug and needs a kick in its nutz... Blocking it did not hurt access or use of FA for me, but stuff loads hella faster and no errors.


ox.fa.net is the ad server. However FA's code has been written in such a way that it's slowness does not affect the speed at which FA loads it's pages, and does not break anything even if the ad server is offline.
The ad server has admittedly been slow lately. This will be looked into the first chance I get.


----------



## Pi (Feb 24, 2011)

CinoxFellpyre said:


> There is a program that is a packetsniffer but it's illegal to use it for anything like the way you'd want to, or any way at all..


 
Hi, I use a packet sniffer on a daily basis as part of my job. Care to clarify your statement?

Yak, is this PHP still dumping core, or would that produce a whitescreen? remember: ulimit -c unlimited; gdb program corefile.


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 24, 2011)

Pi said:


> Hi, I use a packet sniffer on a daily basis as part of my job. Care to clarify your statement?



No, if you didn't understand what I meant, then no point explaining.


----------



## Pi (Feb 24, 2011)

CinoxFellpyre said:


> No, if you didn't understand what I meant, then no point explaining.


 
Really? I understood what you said. I just couldn't derive any meaning from it, because it was a) really, really vague and b) complete horseshit.

Lemme try this again: Under what circumstances is using a packet sniffer illegal?

Remember: *a packet sniffer is a tool that I use on a regular basis*. If you can't explain what you mean, in a way that someone who is intimately familiar with the TCP/IP specification can understand (hi!), then I'm pretty sure it's not my problem.

PS: a packet sniffer is not usually a tool that is generally used to gather pageload and bandwidth statistics. one usually does that using the web server logs.


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 24, 2011)

Pi said:


> Really? I understood what you said. I just couldn't derive any meaning from it, because it was a) really, really vague and b) complete horseshit.
> 
> Lemme try this again: Under what circumstances is using a packet sniffer illegal?
> 
> ...



Sure! I can do that!

I know people use packetsniffers like Wireshark to determine what traffic that is unwanted to filter out and blahblah CISCO blah.

But there are programs out there that can sniff in places they're not supposed to.

Simply enough, I mean that if you're unauthorized to go sniffing around, then by law (and I mean derp law) that's illegal.

And I also know what a packet sniffer does =.= Just it was late.


And I was derp


----------



## Pi (Feb 24, 2011)

CinoxFellpyre said:


> I know people use packetsniffers like Wireshark to determine what traffic that is unwanted to filter out and blahblah CISCO blah.


Unwanted traffic? Filter out? No. No, no, no. A packet sniffer captures packets. It's just a troubleshooting tool. If you're wanting to, say, build up your firewall rules, doing it with a packet sniffer isn't the best idea; try a port scanner (this is another tool which I use on a semiregular basis).

Also, I'm disinclined to listen to you when you say things like "and blahblah CISCO blah". Try to be precise when you're discussing technical concepts, please.



CinoxFellpyre said:


> But there are programs out there that can sniff in places they're not supposed to.


No, actually, there aren't. You can't just say "i wanna sniff the traffic all the way over there today!". Did you perhaps confuse reality with a bad television show? Or are you talking about how one can sniff traffic on shared-medium networks (cf wifi)? Because that's not strictly illegal either.

NB: You might also be thinking of a rootkit, but your phrasing suggests a certain amount of handwaving. Can you perhaps elaborate on _this_ remark a little further? Your vagueness isn't really helping me get a handle on what the everloving fuck you're thinking.



CinoxFellpyre said:


> Simply enough, I mean that if you're unauthorized to go sniffing around, then by law (and I mean derp law) that's illegal.


This is what you just said: breaking the law is against the law. Thanks for that elucidating insight!




CinoxFellpyre said:


> And I also know what a packet sniffer does =.= Just it was late.  And I was derp


I'm pretty sure that you don't, tbqh. But you are being pretty derp. Have fun with that.


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Feb 24, 2011)

Pi said:


> Unwanted traffic? Filter out? No. No, no, no. A packet sniffer captures packets. It's just a troubleshooting tool. If you're wanting to, say, build up your firewall rules, doing it with a packet sniffer isn't the best idea; try a port scanner (this is another tool which I use on a semiregular basis).
> I didn't say the sniffer filters out. I said "o determine what traffic that is unwanted to filter out." That means you need to do it manually (ACLs....fuck them >.=.<)





> Also, I'm disinclined to listen to you when you say things like "and blahblah CISCO blah". Try to be precise when you're discussing technical concepts, please.


No because I don't want to get into a bunch of technical stuff because I really really hate explaining things. I'm better at just doing them.


No, actually, there aren't. You can't just say "i wanna sniff the traffic all the way over there today!". Did you perhaps confuse reality with a bad television show? Or are you talking about how one can sniff traffic on shared-medium networks (cf wifi)? Because that's not strictly illegal either.

NB: You might also be thinking of a rootkit, but your phrasing suggests a certain amount of handwaving. Can you perhaps elaborate on _this_ remark a little further? Your vagueness isn't really helping me get a handle on what the everloving fuck you're thinking.



> I'm pretty sure that you don't, tbqh. But you are being pretty derp. Have fun with that.


Thanks for your input about how much shit dribbles out of your mouth.


----------



## Pi (Feb 24, 2011)

CinoxFellpyre said:


> I didn't say the sniffer filters out. I said "o determine what traffic that is unwanted to filter out." That means you need to do it manually (ACLs....fuck them >.=.<)


As I said, using a packet sniffer is a pretty bad choice there. Try a port scanner.



CinoxFellpyre said:


> No because I don't want to get into a bunch of technical stuff because I really really hate explaining things. I'm better at just doing them.


Y'know, I have never found that to be the case. If you can't explain what you're doing, then you're not smart enough to be doing it well.



> Thanks for your input about how much shit dribbles out of your mouth.


Excuse me?  Are you going to elaborate upon your claims, or simply assert that I'm full of shit? I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about, and when you make remarks like this, that simply reinforces that impression. Do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever?


----------



## BRN (Feb 24, 2011)

Pi said:


> Do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever?


 
In before high school education and a few days messing with Visual Basic.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 24, 2011)

Pi said:


> Excuse me?  Are you going to elaborate upon your claims, or simply assert that I'm full of shit? I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about, and when you make remarks like this, that simply reinforces that impression. Do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever?


 
This is amusing, but why do you bother?  :lol:

I mean, really...


----------



## Kalimba (Feb 25, 2011)

All I want for Error 503 is to stop keeping me away from my sweet furry drama.

503, you're an arse >:C


----------

