submissions? - AVS Forums

Yathosho

4th October 2006 00:10 UTC

submissions?
last avs pack was added to the plugins section on august 31st. what happened, is 2400 the limit the site can take? :p

Warrior of the Light

4th October 2006 15:36 UTC

I read (somewhere, don't remember exactly where) that there would be quite a pile of presets to be reviewed.

I guess DD is away for a while or something.

Rovastar

4th October 2006 16:27 UTC

Yeah there is a few backing up only about 6 or 7 outstanding though.

Mr Jones

4th October 2006 16:38 UTC

And most of the time the submission system is fucked anyhow and dosn't allow us to review, and when it does there is usually no one available to do them.

Cest la vie!

jheriko

5th October 2006 15:52 UTC

I think DD is back... he has been coming into #avs again recently.

Yathosho

8th October 2006 21:25 UTC

spotted him in the forums today..

Doggy Dog

21st October 2006 12:11 UTC

Ok. First of all a sincere apology to all those who have submitted a pack in the last couple of weeks (months?).

As some know, I've had major problems. I (for reasons unknown) didn't get a dorm room (free net) in Zagreb this year, and had to get a room at an appartment. I only got DSL there today (after 10 days or so of waiting).

Before that I was ill for quite long and busy with my exams when I wasn't (and when I was actually). I couldn't leave my house in Split because of that, and as you know, I only have a 56k modem there, and the modem connection only worked on my old Celeron 300A, on which I couldn't rate presets fairly (wouldn't work on my new pc).

All in all, that's behind me. I will get on it as soon as the problems with the system are gone. If they are already (didn't check yet), I'll start reviewing today.

Mr Jones

21st October 2006 14:34 UTC

Originally posted by Doggy Dog
I will get on it as soon as the problems with the system are gone. If they are already (didn't check yet), I'll start reviewing today.

Hah, you'll be waiting some time then....

Yathosho

21st October 2006 16:05 UTC

so only avs is messed, cause there's other new plugins coming almost every day :(

Mr Jones

21st October 2006 18:33 UTC

Yeah, but have you looked at any of the new submission that make it to the site?, either plugins or skins for that matter?

All I see is missing images, crocked download, no staff reviews..

To put it mildly, it's fucked.

Yathosho

27th November 2006 23:12 UTC

yeah, that new submission gave hope, but it's been ages and no change.

wow, you suck america online :down:

jheriko

1st December 2006 10:55 UTC

Yes. AOL suck.

I just wanted to say that...

Warrior of the Light

1st December 2006 11:23 UTC

What problem could be so big that this has to run for months now?

CraigF

1st December 2006 15:12 UTC

I reported this problem to those who can make a difference yesterday and they say it was fixed there and then. Fix was deployed yesterday so things should now be swinging into action.

Doggy Dog

1st December 2006 21:12 UTC

Yes they should and are.

Yathosho

20th December 2006 18:23 UTC

so what's holding you? dm6 is in the submission queue for ages already, wfc5 was just added

DrO

20th December 2006 18:55 UTC

someone getting around to review it i guess is the reason for the delay which sort of leaves it at the hands of doggy (i won't review avs presets since i've no clue when it comes to them :) )

-daz

Nanakiwurkz

20th December 2006 23:12 UTC

suggestion would be to upgrade to a new server or atleast oh i dont know *dump the really really really old avs presets that no one downloads anymore* i work on a website that has the same issues with the server like the winamp submission place does. heh were still trying to fix the problem aswell. i'll post the answer to our problem and let you guys figure something out from the fix we used. -_-*
*grabs server and chucks it down a cliff* there problem solved. heh.

Warrior of the Light

21st December 2006 09:36 UTC

So DD is the only reviewer for AVS packs now?
DD, if you need some help to get the current pile reviewed, feel free to PM me if you want to

DrO

21st December 2006 09:42 UTC

Nanakiwurkz: the main issue with things is that it has to run through multiple layers of servers, etc from what i've heard so a new server isn't going to help (though there were upgrades which initially set off the issues last year).

WotL: i guess so since the rest of us i know won't touch the other types that they don't generally deal with

-daz

jheriko

21st December 2006 10:47 UTC

Originally posted by DrO
Nanakiwurkz: the main issue with things is that it has to run through multiple layers of servers...

Your post reminds me about when my packs all went missing for some reason.

I never understand the difficulty in managing these databases... they aren't particularly large or complex, and merging the wa3 and wa2 databases should have been trivial.

I understand that the database is quite big and there is some substantial load, but neither of these have an effect on functionality beyond speed.

So why is it broken so often?

Personally I would expect the answer to be lack of manpower rather than some kind of incompetence... databases really are trivial.

CraigF

21st December 2006 12:05 UTC

Its not the database thats broken, its the synchronization.

Winamp.com runs on many servers, AOL's distribution servers (like download.winamp.com) run on yet more. Remember, one address doesn't mean anything, there are virtual addresses, clustering and round robins in place to handle all the traffic.

And each of those servers has to be synchronized.

jheriko

21st December 2006 12:36 UTC

Originally posted by CraigF
Its not the database thats broken, its the synchronization.

Winamp.com runs on many servers, AOL's distribution servers (like download.winamp.com) run on yet more. Remember, one address doesn't mean anything, there are virtual addresses, clustering and round robins in place to handle all the traffic.

And each of those servers has to be synchronized.

Whats so difficult about synchronising servers? :p

I'm sure there are reasons, but I am /fairly/ sure that this is a trivial problem too.

Warrior of the Light

21st December 2006 12:56 UTC

what problem isn't trivial to you? :)

DrO

21st December 2006 13:25 UTC

lack of staff / prats in other parts of the company disabling things incorrectly / lack of staff / corporate bullcrap, etc

it's not just as simple as you doing it, there's a lot more factors which hinder things and you have to remember that winamp is viewed as a pretty small part of things hence the general lack of resources for the project. i guess shit happens sums things up pretty well.

-daz

jheriko

21st December 2006 13:32 UTC

Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
what problem isn't trivial to you? :)

I do throw that word around a lot. What I normally mean by it is that I can think of multiple possible (I'm not always right of course) solutions instantaneously.

In this case, synchronising servers... I assume this means synchronising their databases/settings. There are several approaches to this. The obvious is just to copy the data continually, keeping track of what time everything is being synchronised up to (to avoid potential problems from new data).

An even better way is that when the database/settings are updated on any server the updates are propogated to each server, any server which is offline will needs its updates stored until it comes online. This way you need to do no synchronisation except at the start.

These are both trivial solutions to the problem. The time taken to type this message is substantially greater than the time it took me to "come up" with these.

Of course, its entirely possible that I am misinterpreting "server synchronisation". I find it unlikely that any team of developers is going to miss the obvious like this... so there is likely something that I am missing...

Saying that I work in a company where trivial problems are left undealt with creating Â£100,000s of redundant expenditure (my entire department does the job of a query, manually) and the development teams here are oversized and underproductive. Although here it is quite obviously a management problem... I have let my management know that our entire department could be automated out of existence in a couple of weeks... but "outsourcing" is the solution of choice, presumably because with sufficient ignorance it looks cheaper. The IT usage here is exceptionally appalling though... and probably the exception rather than the rule.

Nanakiwurkz

23rd December 2006 01:39 UTC

sorry for this

Originally posted by jheriko
I do throw that word around a lot. What I normally mean by it is that I can think of multiple possible (I'm not always right of course) solutions instantaneously.

In this case, synchronising servers... I assume this means synchronising their databases/settings. There are several approaches to this. The obvious is just to copy the data continually, keeping track of what time everything is being synchronised up to (to avoid potential problems from new data).

An even better way is that when the database/settings are updated on any server the updates are propogated to each server, any server which is offline will needs its updates stored until it comes online. This way you need to do no synchronisation except at the start.

These are both trivial solutions to the problem. The time taken to type this message is substantially greater than the time it took me to "come up" with these.

Of course, its entirely possible that I am misinterpreting "server synchronisation". I find it unlikely that any team of developers is going to miss the obvious like this... so there is likely something that I am missing...

Saying that I work in a company where trivial problems are left undealt with creating Â£100,000s of redundant expenditure (my entire department does the job of a query, manually) and the development teams here are oversized and underproductive. Although here it is quite obviously a management problem... I have let my management know that our entire department could be automated out of existence in a couple of weeks... but "outsourcing" is the solution of choice, presumably because with sufficient ignorance it looks cheaper. The IT usage here is exceptionally appalling though... and probably the exception rather than the rule.

Jheriko your right in many cases but when it comes to webservers the problem is more then manpower and the database.

have you ever heard of central point networking?
no then let me explain.
for everyserver there is one master server that sends and receives data too and from each server that needs to be accesed now when you take in example that winamp had 10 sub-servers and one master server. the demand for data is divided by 10 to 1 a good number but not where i'm going with this.

each server runs differently and performs differently
then take the master server it has to snyc with each server at almost the same time. which in computer terms is very tasking and can get very hard for the server to do over time.
one cause would be that the HD is starting to load up and needs defragmenting or that one of the sub-servers is running at a speed that the master can't snyc to.
when a sub-server starts asking for more then what the central network server can give the other servers are left with low resources and are thus slowed down. no matter what you do there will always be a server that needs too much and starves the others. I hope this clears up the synchronization theory. if i sound wrong in any area i appologise i'm wirting this on a time limit.