Tapatalk RIP for RFF Deactivated

Clearly with Tapatalk now disabled and access continuing to be poor for many users the problem wasn't Tapatalk. APUG and the Leica Forum, for example, have no problems with implementing Tapatalk.
 
Hmmm, if Tapatalk is not the culprit for the slowness of RFF then please turn Tapatalk back on. It's a great convenience for those of us who use it.

-Randy
 
Much slower in Toronto as well. The Gallery used to load near instantaneously with thumbnails but now it's painfully slow with each thumbnail showing up one by one with long waits in between. This is consistent with different platforms (XP, Vista, iOS) and ISPs (Rogers, Bell).

I would concur with this assessment.
Regardless of "speed of delivery" as well - DSL, Cable or T1/OC3 line.

Dave
 
Clearly with Tapatalk now disabled and access continuing to be poor for many users the problem wasn't Tapatalk. APUG and the Leica Forum, for example, have no problems with implementing Tapatalk.

I can second that!

Tapatalk is a very handy application, keeping the forum friends together even more. It will be nice to have it back...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would like Tapatalk back, it seems clear now it was not the problem.

Mucho Gratis :)

You have no idea if that is correct. Installing software does all sorts of updates which may not have been undone with the un-install. The webmaster should be on the case but somehow I think we may have a long wait for normal service to be resumed.
 
For those of you who always have sluggish performance, just curious, have you tried google public dns, or a local dns altnernative (opendns, ultradns ?)? http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/using.html#setup

what are your typical ping times from your pc to www.rangefinderforum.com ? Mine are about 50ms. Unless the site is obviously down or being hammered, usually weekend nights, sat. or sundays.

Ping time is about 40ms - however, merely being able to ping a server / address does not necessarily mean the site, or the hosting service (be it Apache, IIS, or even GWS) isn't having an issue on its own. That is to say, a server may be up and "operational" and can respond to Ping requests but that doesn't mean the Web Hosting software is functioning up to spec.

Dave
 
Ping time is about 40ms - however, merely being able to ping a server / address does not necessarily mean the site, or the hosting service (be it Apache, IIS, or even GWS) isn't having an issue on its own. That is to say, a server may be up and "operational" and can respond to Ping requests but that doesn't mean the Web Hosting software is functioning up to spec.

Dave

+1

And servers can be configured to give low priority to ping requests so that when the end server is reached and timeouts occur, its possible the server is working normally but just doesn't respond quickly to a tracert ping request.
 
Last edited:
Here's something interesting though. I'm browsing mobile on my iPod touch and I note that the response time is not as slow as on my desktop or laptop.

Dave
 
That's interesting. So from the UK, does your traceroute when completed, eventually end up at: 64.38.3.147 (layered / Chicago) ?
 
Here's something interesting though. I'm browsing mobile on my iPod touch and I note that the response time is not as slow as on my desktop or laptop.

Dave

Could be serving different pages for mobile. I'm still guessing its a database indexing problem probably caused by too infrequent maintenance. But really it could be so many things that without acess to servers to monitor it its all guesswork.
 
That's interesting. So from the UK, does your traceroute when completed, eventually end up at: 64.38.3.147 (layered / Chicago) ?

OOOOPS !!!!

I think I tracerouted rangefinderforum.org by mistake

here's the correct one.

2 35 ms 35 ms 34 ms lns0.th.newnet.co.uk [212.87.69.193]
3 35 ms 35 ms 35 ms 7609-1.lan2.newnet.co.uk [212.87.79.65]
4 115 ms 114 ms 112 ms 195.66.224.130
5 114 ms 120 ms 114 ms vb1042.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net [207.88.13.202]
6 134 ms 138 ms 136 ms 207.88.14.62.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.62]
7 131 ms 134 ms 133 ms 207.88.184.146.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.184.146]
8 147 ms 133 ms 131 ms border5.po1-bbnet1.chg.pnap.net [64.94.32.10]
9 129 ms 131 ms 130 ms layeredtech-6.border5.chg.pnap.net [74.217.8.10]
10 133 ms 134 ms 134 ms 74.200.240.57
11 146 ms 145 ms 145 ms 64.38.8.81
12 149 ms 148 ms 148 ms 64.38.3.147
Trace complete.
 
Last edited:
OK, here's something else we can try: when I enter this site here:

http://pagespeed.googlelabs.com/

I get 37/100 (from Chrome on a Mac).

When I profile it with Yslow on windows, there's no shortage of optimization that could be employed.

db issues are probably lingering, but I don't see why those would give some folks 10 second page refreshes, and others just normal kinda draggin', but comes back in a few seconds, response??
 
OK, here's something else we can try: when I enter this site here:

http://pagespeed.googlelabs.com/

I get 37/100 (from Chrome on a Mac).

When I profile it with Yslow on windows, there's no shortage of optimization that could be employed.

db issues are probably lingering, but I don't see why those would give some folks 10 second page refreshes, and others just normal kinda draggin', but comes back in a few seconds, response??

Its all guess work and won't be resolved from outside of the server.
 
For those of you who always have sluggish performance, just curious, have you tried google public dns

Google Public DNS is a great way to provide Google with yet another track record of what you do on the Internet. Due to being DNS-based, it includes things outside the browser, such as when and from where you use Skype, mail readers, OS updates (...).

This is arguably the primary purpose of Google DNS and I guess a little warning is in order before recommending it to people.
 
its a shame that. i really love RFF on tapatalk. Leica-forum still works and the forum seems fine on browser thou. sad news for me :(
 
Back
Top Bottom