<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.0.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 10:39 -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:45 AM, <<A HREF="mailto:dennisjperkins@comcast.net">dennisjperkins@comcast.net</A>> wrote:
I don't have any problems with you making decisions, but I find it
unacceptable for anyone to tell a contributing member to "shut up and
go away". Obviously, such misfires are not under your control. You'd
think that some people could find more adult ways of expressing their
opinions.
>
> Mark Harvey is looking at the logs. We had a lot of segmentation faults and
> kill failure messages after we switched. I don't know why because what
> you did should have lessened the load. Memory does seem to be the
> problem. Alex Llera took a look at what could be done to optimize the
> server and offered suggestions. It might be a good idea to do a VM with
> only 256MB and see if it has problems.
I'm still of the opinion that available memory is a major part of the
problem. Given the newness of drupal7, I doubt that anyone has really
checked out the performance/bugs when running with a minimal memory
configuration. Either the problems are endemic with Drupal7 (memory
leaks) , or they will disappear when running with more memory. I seem
to remember reading that Chris Fedde experienced a lot fewer problems
with drupal7 and more memory. The more I read about drupal7, the more
I believe that it is indeed a memory hog (confirmed by many drupal
experts).
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I think you are probably right about memory. Maybe making the new site official increased the load in some way.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>