CWCki:Technical

Community Portal
Forum	News	Policy
Help	Technical	General

For discussion of errors, extensions, and technical stuff in general(yes we know about the 500 errors).

upgraded to 1.16.0

seems like all the obvious stuff is fixed but if there are any missing extensions you need please let me know --Cogsdev 02:39, 2 August 2010 (PDT)

Audio hosting

Seeing as how some of the audio recordings that we link to on some pages have been removed from their file hosting sites, I was thinking maybe instead of having people download audio we simply host it here CWCiki side. An example of what I am talking about can be found here.[1] CrassCrab 10:14, 3 August 2010 (PDT)

This could be doable, but needs server configuration. From user's point of view, it could be a simple matter of converting the files to Ogg Vorbis and uploading them here. Currently, the upload page doesn't accept .ogg files, and files are limited to 7 MB. In order to make the in-browser support work, we'd need the OggHandler extension (which needs ffmpeg and other leet stuff installed on the server as well). --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 03:12, 6 August 2010 (PDT)

Apache Module versus CGI

I've been a long time lurker, but the prevalence of 500 Internal Server Errors has prompted me to register an account. I've lurked and searched the CWCki to see if this has been suggested, but I didn't see anyone bring up this potential solution. So I apologize if I'm offering a redundant suggestion. These error messages seem to suggest to me that the Wiki software is running on CGI. A lot of CGI-related performance issues can be remedied by running PHP via an Apache module, rather than as a CGI binary. The PHP CGI binary is invoked, processes a script, and then shuts down every time a page is requested. Apache modules are continuous, thread safe processes (thread safety can be build dependent). I'm not sure if this hosting provider offers such a configuration option, but it may be worth looking into one that does if this becomes an increasingly prominent issue. FastCGI may be a worthwhile alternative to the current configuration if an Apache module is not an option because of some inherent limitations with Wiki software. Sheex 10:28, 24 August 2010 (PDT)

500 internal server error poll

Please note what page you received it on and what your action was (view/edit/etc...). Clydec 14:25, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• Main Page/View - It happens sometimes when I try going here on a new window. --EdtheHedgehog1894 18:14, 5 October 2010 (EST)

• I almost always get it when saving an edit, sometimes when I log in. Pfargtl9000 Spam & Eggs 17:10, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• Same here.--trombonista 18:08, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• That's actually been happening to me quite a bit, recently. --EdtheHedgehog1894 21:23, 5 October 2010 (EST)

Extra processing and memory is used while saving a page, and since lack of memory is the likely cause of the error - it's unsurprising that you encounter it when doing the above. Implementing global caching would help alleviate server load, as currently every page request from logged in users is generating server processing. Longer pages have more chance of generating the error - as they are larger, and take up more memory while being processed. --Anonymax 18:30, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

I'll back up the main page and saving edits. I almost never get them otherwise recently. Sometimes I get them if I try to open a page in a tab. The way I browse, I open links I want to read in tabs in tabs to where I can continue reading the page I'm on without having to come back and remember where I was. The tabs will 500 error about 25% of the time. BubblegumPinkButler 14:22, 6 October 2010 (PDT)

• Got one this morning on the Main page. I didn't do anything in particular other than trying to open it. --ErsatzHouse 12:55, 8 October 2010 (PDT)

Is the CWCki faster now?

Is it? Do you get the 500 internal server error still? Clydec 20:39, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• It's better. Though it still takes a little while to load longer pages after editing, and I've only experienced one error message while searching for some video. It's a good start, though. --EdtheHedgehog1894 00:02, 6 October 2010 (EST)

Yes it's very fast when not doing things like editing/saving pages (as to be expected). The changes made should hopefully mean fewer errors for everyone, and it seems like a much faster article-browsing experience too. --Anonymax 21:18, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• I still get a lot of 500 Internal Server Errors. Not as many as before but it still happens a noticeable amount. It's as fast as it was before; I don't see any difference. Yossarian 13:26, 6 October 2010 (PDT)
• I've only gotten one today. Usually I get at least three.--trombonista 21:35, 9 October 2010 (PDT)
  • Okay, today I got bitchslapped by the error when trying to edit that stupid prank call page.--trombonista 21:24, 15 October 2010 (PDT)
• I only seem to get 500 errors when requesting pages which are not static (i.e. edit pages, recent changes, histories, diffs). The odd 500 error I get when browsing regular articles tends to be on ones that are subject to a lot of recent edits, such as a new video article. --Anonymax 05:52, 13 October 2010 (PDT)

Default Skin

I think we should make Vector the default skin for the CWCki, as MonoBook is pretty dated and Vector gives wikis a very clean appearance. A lot of wikis are adopting Vector for this reason. The layout differences are fairly minor, so it really shouldn't give anyone much trouble by making it the default. Users who really dislike it can still change back to MonoBook in their prefs.

• Preview Vector on the Main Page
• Preview Vector on this page

Your thoughts please! --Anonymax 20:11, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Personally I find Monobook more simplistic and nice, as well as more familiar. But we'll see. -- Mexican 21:03, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Vector is clunky and confusing. I prefer Monobook. --BreadGod 21:38, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Monobook is only used by autistics. Vector should be the new default skin.--Inos 22:09, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Vector's kinda pretty! --NerdyNautilus 10:36, 19 November, 2010 (PST)

I could defend either one but they're both shitty white default skins so I honestly don't give a damn. The one we have now is fine, I see no reason to change it.