MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: FUP and LAG

This is just a quick note to let you all know that FUP is GOOD.

I run a MOO with 4,200 objects and is steadily growing.  We have 10-20
connections at slow times, 20-30 at "normal" times, and we've peaked at
close to 60.

We use FUP.  We use it on descriptions, on help, on verbcode documentation,
player and $mail_recipient mail, and lots of other long text type things. 
We use about 4.0 % CPU of the machine we're running on, and the process is
at about 14 MB.  Our MOO is also a Web server (running ThwartedEfforts'
E_WEB code, modified).

We have never had a FUP-related problems.  No lag, no crashes.  Just a very
nice decrease in the size of our text db and process size after
implementing it.  At 50+ connections the MOO gets a little jerky...but who
wouldn't, with that kind of activity?

The machine this MOO runs on is a fairly typical Linux setup, with a
Pentium, 128 MB RAM, tons of swap, and some top-quality, very fast hard
drives.  It is the home of at least a dozen MUDS, MUSHes, and our MOO.

I guess that for every success story there is a horror story.


> From: Edward L. Haletky < (none)>
> To:
> Subject: FUP and LAG
> Date: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 4:31 PM
> Hello,
> Just a quick note to let you all know that FUP is BAD. We thought it
> be very useful but it ended up costing us nearly a diskdrive, a few
> crashes, and huge amount of lag when being accessed.
> So we ripped it out this AM. Only thing FUP'd now is our Help.
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Edward L. Haletky, President            BATS (ISP Billing and Tracking
> AstroArch Consulting, Inc.    

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index