[rafio]

>Oh come on, the average person who looks at a graph that says product B is

>slower than product A doesn’t know how to be critical about the testing

>methods. If they did, every other commercial you see on TV would be >useless.

I can agree with that, but only in part. Person with right knowledge will read bench results correctly. Others? Not neccessary. From my own experience I know that casual bread eaters (lets call them CBE for short and comic relief) take different approach for this. Before forum generates serious traffic on user’s host, it goes like this:

* It works for me.

* Its slower, but I like it.

* Who Cares?

* Its not so bad

I am not making this up, those are real testimonies i received when working on web apps.

[_ck_]

Oh come on, the average person who looks at a graph that says product B is slower than product A doesn’t know how to be critical about the testing methods. If they did, every other commercial you see on TV would be useless.

Making a benchmark is a learning process. I am certainly not critical of the effort, I think it’s great someone took the time to do it. All I am saying the concept can be improved and expanded.

Early on I wrote bb-benchmark to analyze how bbPress performs from the server-side. It can be very helpful. But as fancy as the analysis is, in the end something I wrote much later on that gives much simpler data is far more practical for real-world results (browser-timer).

AB could be considered the parallel of bb-benchmark. It has it’s usefulness.

But one day there will be something more real-world like browser-timer.

[rafio]

Can you quote me where on bb-bench it claims those tests aim to reproduce production enviroment?

Thats only comparision between systems. Everywhere I see people taking this as real-live scenario, but it doesnt. Its just to show people differences between softwares with same forum size (topics, posts and forums).

[_ck_]

Of course it will be good to have content caching added, I already commented on how plugins can do that and bbPress never got content caching because it was being re-invented every couple of years. The reality is now it’s a moot point, bbPress 0.9 and 1.0-1.1 will never have it internally. I doubt 1.2/2.0 will ever either, they will simply rely on WP plugins to do page caching.

But I’m also saying the effects of content caching will be less visible if the test was more realistic to how forums are really used.

Apachebench is not complete enough and not real-world enough.

The problem is it’s going to take a week or two of coding to write something better and I can’t imagine someone doing that unless they were serious and skilled enough to do it.

I could write a plugin that defeats apachebench entirely, it’s very easy. AB does not load any content on the page, no images, no scripts. So basically all I have to do is send it one hard coded script tag, nothing else on the page, and the script loads the page. Then bbPress would rank as fast as an empty static html/php page.

That’s an extreme unrealistic example but it’s part of what I am saying. A real world test would load the page like a browser does, it would accept and return cookies so a user couple be logged in, and it would post new content between reads.

Writing a test like that is hard work, so I am not surprised that just using AB is the fallback.

You want bbPress to be cached? It can already do that, deep integrate with WP and then use wp-super-cache (or similar).

But then the page generation time is hidden in the first page render, let’s say it takes 800ms or more. Each next page will only take 20ms or less to serve. But Apachebench is “dumb” and doesn’t know that, it can only show best/worst and averages.

What if SMF or one of the others take 2 seconds for the first render on a new login and then 20ms for each successive? That 2 seconds is important if the content/user is constantly changing. What if a forum generates a list of topics the same for everyone but then uses javascript to change the list after the fact by using extra queries outside of the original page render? Apachebench cannot “catch” any of those scenarios or show their performance.

[rafio]

Hey Everyone!

I am tracking opinions on bb-bench.com on internet from my curiosity (I am NOT associated with that initiative in any way).

I find this thread interesting in negative way. Hovewer responses on those results are not suprise to me. Every dev unsatissfied with results attacks test itself ignoring bad solutions (or lack of countersolutions) in his code.

You say “test is bad because we dont implement cache while others do”. That indeed has its effect on BBPress results hovewer as end-user I am interested in performace. Caching algorithms are necessary if you aim your software for bigger communities.

Ofcourse you can say “hey, if load is too big, you can always switch to more powerful hosting plan”. Thats true, however whats heaper for user? Change hosting solution or community software for faster one?

What I am especially disgusted with is how you claimed other solutions use full-page cache, while none of them does. Lying about other software to make your one appear “more fair” is really cheap shot.

If your code lacks features like caching, you implement those, dont argue over how cache is bad and gives others unfair advantage in tests. How hard it is to implement basic cache mechanism to code? Implementing it will make software better.

[ckwalsh]

Um, wow. I’ll admit I’m quite astounded and I’m not quite sure what to say, but I’ll try.

Actually the PHP version kinda proved my point about content caching.

It’s taking 3-4 ms.

The front page index on most of those forums is taking 20-25ms

Uh… no they aren’t. http://bb-bench.com/benchmark/1#section_p_index

That’s impossibly fast, it definitely means content is not being regenerated. If the cache was defeated it would have to re-render the whole thing and the page time would be significantly higher.

No, it’s not impossibly fast. I have not perused the code of most systems, but I can guarantee phpBB does not cache the output of its pages. They are retrieved every page load. Sure, there is a caching system in place, but it doesn’t catch the output of a page, only stores a few variables that don’t even improve performance particularly. As for caching at the apache level, you would see a much bigger difference in speed than you do see. Without special configuration, apache should never cache the output of a php page, since that would entirely defeat the purpose of a dynamically generated page.

Caching page output is near impossible for forums in general, due to forum permissions and session specific information. It would be kind of bad if my “One private message unread” were cached for you. The only other form of caching is the sql cache, which is contained entirely within MySQL, and is automatically activated for all queries, regardless of software.

bbPress doesn’t even save the tag cloud between pages, it will re-render it each and every time, which is at least 1/4th of the page render time (that can be changed via a plugin).

Sounds like that’s a big area for bbPress to improve. But it still doesn’t make the result invalid: bbPress is slower.

So 265ms vs 78ms

bbPress 0.9 is “only” 187ms slower than statically served PHP.

Do your math again. It’s 260ms slower than a static page. It’s still damn slow, and if someone installs bbpress and *pick another board* side by side, the bbpress one will not perform better. While technically correct, it does nothing to affect the overall results.

@ckwalsh, Your benchmarks are incorrect this way. _ck_ is right about it

Can you please paraphrase what his arguments are, and perhaps add a little bit more? I’m getting the feeling that you posted here to support _ck_ since the results I found were unfavorable to bbPress, and you don’t have anything to add, or even understand the discussion. Not to say I only want to talk to experts, but blind bandwagonning always frustrates me on the internet.

Basically I’d want to see a simulated load with logged in users being served different content – ie. unread posts for different users

Certainly apache bench isn’t perfect, however, it does show the relative performance of those 3 pages, which are almost guaranteed to be responsible for the majority of requests to a forum. I have been considering how to build a better tool, but have not gotten a chance to do so yet.

But plugins can still do content caching themselves. For example I realized awhile back that the Hot Tag cloud that bbPress renders is taking at least 1/4th of the total page render time, and it does it each and every time, regardless if there are new tags added or deleted. So my Hot Tags Plus plugin caches the tag cloud as static html (as well as add many other features to it at the same time).

If you think that will drop load time, it seems to be something anyone can add – I’d certainly be willing to install it for my tests.

Overall, you seem to be upset that bbPress performed so badly, leading you to say the benchmark is wrong. While it isn’t perfect, what it does show it shows rather precisely. In the current state of forum software, bbPress does appear to have a long way to go. It doesn’t matter if it was rewritten. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t have caching (if so, that is a failure of bbPress, not an unfair advantage to other software). When comparing the same functionality between software, those are the results, like them or not.

[_ck_]

quick ‘n’ dirty test: ab -c 20 -n 1000

bbpress 1.1

.             min  mean[+/-sd] median   max

Total:         46  458 117.9    453    1250

bbpress 0.9 (with $bb->load_options=true;)

.             min  mean[+/-sd] median   max

Total:         46  275  90.6    265     890

453ms vs 265ms (or 458 vs 275)

So, I’d expect I’d see around a 50% improvement on your box on 0.9

now – vs static cache content simulation:

bbPress 0.9 front page html saved as static.php

and <?php $test=1; ?> put at top to force PHP parser to turn on

.             min  mean[+/-sd] median   max

Total:         15   75  14.3     78     109

So 265ms vs 78ms

bbPress 0.9 is “only” 187ms slower than statically served PHP.

In a nutshell:

.             min  mean[+/-sd] median   max

bbpress 1.0:   46  458 117.9    453    1250

bbpress 0.9:   46  275  90.6    265     890

static PHP     15   75  14.3     78     109

[_ck_]

Actually the PHP version kinda proved my point about content caching.

It’s taking 3-4 ms.

The front page index on most of those forums is taking 20-25ms

That’s impossibly fast, it definitely means content is not being regenerated. If the cache was defeated it would have to re-render the whole thing and the page time would be significantly higher.

bbPress doesn’t even save the tag cloud between pages, it will re-render it each and every time, which is at least 1/4th of the page render time (that can be changed via a plugin).

So you aren’t testing renderer-vs-renderer, you’re testing content caching vs content caching. You aren’t even testing for logged-in users but only outside visitors.

If we are going to play that game, all someone has to do is port wp-super-cache to bbpress and it will beat every forum in existence, because static html will be served via htaccess directly and bypass PHP/MySQL entirely. So you’d be down to 4ms (or less) per page.

In any case, I am looking forward to seeing how 0.9 does against 1.0 under 20 concurrency.

[ckwalsh]

I just ran some tests, with an html file and a php file, both containing “Hello World”. You can find the apache bench results here: http://pastebin.ca/1934137

Clearly they are much faster than any forum software, handling 5000+ and 9000+ requests per second each (I had to run apache bench with 100,000 hits to get a semi accurate reading)

As for a write once, read many times situation, blogs do exhibit such behavior more so than forums, I’ll admit. However, forums are certainly more read heavy than write heavy.

Take a look at phpBB.com’s support forum, http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewforum.php?f=46 . You will be hard pressed to find a topic without at least 5 times as many views as posts, and many of the sticky topics have over 100 times as many reads as posts. Show me any forum with more writes than reads and I will be impressed.

I’ll be running bbpress 0.9 later tonight, along with some changes to SMF that they suggested.

[_ck_]

When you test a static file, I’d like to see it done like this.

1. run it as php so it has to go through the php parser

2. call it with a unique query on the url for each page per thread

the purpose of the above is to (slightly) defeat pure caching on apache’s part

I will always disagree that forums are write-once/read-many-times

That behavior is found with blogs, not forums.

The popular forums I belong to have new posts every few seconds which is very different than even the most popular blogs I read.

[_ck_]

I look forward to a static page for comparison on your graph.

It will prove what I am saying about content caching.

I have a test SMF install handy and I can see it uses less than a half-dozen queries on a 2nd page load which is a dead giveaway there is caching – I am sure every other 3rd gen forum package has it too. You have APC running and I know that SMF also takes advantage of that, so probably do others.

bbPress never got content caching because Matt keeps having the core re-invented every couple years (backpress and now as WP plugin) so we keep getting back to square one for advanced features. Don’t be confused by versions 0.9 is a different program than 1.0 and 1.2 is a completely different program than 1.0 or 0.9 (that’s Matt’s fault).

So I still insist this isn’t a fair comparison.

But bbPress 0.9 should be about halfway between the 1.x and other forum software (ie. 50% faster) 0.9 will be continued to developed independently, so it’s worth benchmarking.

If you are willing to put a couple of tweaks in the bb-config with 0.9 I think we can get a little closer to the rest of the pack at the bottom, ie.

$bb->load_options = true;

off the top of my head (note that does nothing in 1.0)

[_ck_]

Didn’t it dawn on you when you see all the boards performing exactly the same under load with static content that they are using a page cache?

I mean that leaps out at me when I look at this:

http://bb-bench.com/benchmark/1/graphs/p/forum-middle.png

That’s obviously dynamic vs static content.

Put a static HTML page on your server and run the same tests against it to show the baseline.

[minervaa]

*Happy?*

Yap ! this time it’s working perfectly! Thanks a ton to both of you.

That means using this plugin, no html is supported at all on the topics?

Is it possible to improve this plugin a little bit as –

1. It will allow admin to post any clickable links(including outgoing) on the the topics

2. It will allow anyone to post clickable links ONLY when the link is from the same domain as the forum? (internal links)

To give an example, lets say this plugin is activated in bbpress.org.

A member post a topic saying

“Buy cheap Viagra from http://www.cheapest-vira-xyz.info&#8221; <– this link would be plain text.

“A member post a topic saying “Has any one got this working? https://bbpress.org/forums/topic/cant-switch-themes-in-081&#8221; <– this link would be clickable

again if any member post a topic saying “have you read this bbPress blog here ? https://www.bbpress.org/blog/latest/bla-bla-bla-bla&#8221; <– this link would be clickable as they are from the same domain as the forum

If the above functions can be implemented on this plugin, that would be a brilliant tool to put off most of the spammers.

[radovanx]

Hi

I would like my latest post reply is first in the list – you can see my forum here

http://www.forumetudiants.net/foro/

where i can changing thist problem ?

2.

Iam search for plugin for reply direct for users

excuse me for my english

thank you

[minervaa]

Hi _CK_,

I am trying to make the forum as users can’t post html links i.e if they post a site link on their topic, it will become non click able plain text but only admin can post a html link on the topic.

After implementing Zaerl’s plugin it is still allowing html links on the post. I tested vigorously – all of the posts were made by different non admins (basic members)

I just tested your plugin as well but it is still the same. It is not converting the html links to plain text I’m afraid.

[_ck_]

bbPress 0.9 is just about to break 150k downloads

(that may include all previous versions too, I am uncertain if it was reset after 0.

bbPress 1.x has been downloaded over 121k times!

_ck_ plugins this weekend will break the 100k total downloads mark!

These are the top 10 _ck_ plugins:

bbPress Signatures

BBcode Lite

bbPress Smilies

Human Test

BBcode Buttons

bbPress Attachments

bbPress Polls

Hidden Forums

Post Count Plus

Topic Icons

[donnasdream]

Hi,

I am building a forum (http://donnasdream.co.uk/forum) to co-exist with my existing wordpress blog (http://donnasdream.co.uk).

I have tried to install BB-Mobile and followed the instructions to the letter however i cannot get it to work. I am using version 1.0.2 of BB-Press and the latest version i can find of BB-Mobile.

As my work for the website involves me travelling around quite alot i really need to be able to access a mobile version of the forum like i can for the main site so i can quickly reply to posts etc (http://donnasdream.co.uk should show a mobile site on most touch screen phones).

Does anyoneknow anything i can do to get this working, even if its a crude work-around (the mobile site is more for me to use as i dont think the majority of the visitors to the site will use it).

Many thanks in advance

Az Mansell

Donna’s Dream

[Fernando Tellado]

Hola,

1. Plugins: Bozo users + Delete all bozos + Akismet + Skip Akismet (for admins and moderators) + Human test

2. bbPress is going to be in glotpress soon (I hope), meanwhile you can download the translation on your language made by the community

3. You can restrict access to bots with a robots.txt too

4. I recommend bbpress because is great for SEO, simple to use and friendly with your hosting needs (very light). It comes with some lacks yet (you cannot move a post from one forum to another) but it have a great future, much more when it will come as a wp plugin

¡Saludos!

[chrishajer]

1. Spammers – use Human Test to prevent them from registering the first time around. I can’t recommend Akismet because of the false positives and the fact that it doesn’t block all spammers.

2. Translation – not sure what to tell you. Translation takes time.

3. What needs to be managed with search engine traffic? If you have an XML sitemap, the search engines will follow it. If not, they follow links, unless you don’t want them to.

4. I don’t recommend anything other than bbPress, but only because I have never used anything else. The versions available now are standalone and in the future bbPress will be a WordPress plugin.

[minervaa]

**Keep in mind that, obviously, it is not retroactive. Preexisting posts aren’t affected.**

Yap I know that, I posted few new posts (by non admin member) just to test it

I am not a professional programmer but I think if we can change the code (maybe on post.php file?) where it says “make” http:// and www. texts to hyperlink, maybe it will work?

Just a thought by the way

[kevinjohngallagher]

Thanks Raize,

I’ve not had a good laugh on these forums in months

VanillaForums (v1) was a good effort, for a small few it matched their needs well, and certainly had a community that wanted to drive it on. v2 though, and it’s 2.5 year development cycle, has been quite disasterous with some brilliant spin.

The plan to move to a custom built platform “Garden” (their equivalent of backPress) was re-written twice over 2 years, and just 3 months ago they also changed how all v2 forums are themed – by using an external templating system called Smarty instead of PHP.

That said, it’s not like bbPress is without it’s issues either (people in glass houses etc…), but given the poor state of a just released and not brilliantly tested software thats taken over 2 years to throw together… I’d probably not make too many assumptions that it’s going to impact other software in the same vertical, ha, and I’d sure as heck not tell people to pack their bags

[Rich Pedley]

Well bbPress as a plugin is progressing, and last official word was that there would be a testable version in a few weeks.

[Daniel Juhl]

I just found the code making the “error”.

/bb-includes/class.bb-locale.php : Line 445

$num = number_format( $number, $decimals, $bb_locale->number_format, $bb_locale->number_format );

I can also tell, that the server is up to date, running the latest PHP 5 etc.

[jeagan]

[Resolved]

Fortunately, I have stored the settings of my bbPress in my laptop. I uploaded again in the former path. I reloaded the former site, and it worked. Then I changed the path, and tested whether it works in their new path. It worked! I deleted the old folder, and I have no problem in my root directory.

The service guy in my hosting company has had hard time, ad the setting was not in Enlgish. I still wonder what makes it work in Korean language even after I have delelted all the non-English related settings, files and folders.

[nood]

Installed WP3.0.1 and latest version of bbpress as of this week, everything seemed to install fine, logins work across both but I have no Admin link on the forum.

What can I check to see what’s missing?

Thanks.