Ahh, but he probably won't huh? Well, it doesn't really matter anyways. I just wanted to see if I was the only one who used the 40 option...I'm glad I'm not abnormal
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How many posts do you like to see per page?
- Thread starter CalBoy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ahh, but he probably won't huh? Well, it doesn't really matter anyways. I just wanted to see if I was the only one who used the 40 option...I'm glad I'm not abnormal
In the pictures threads, would having more posts per page put the servers under more strain? Is that the reason the limit is 40 comments?
Working that out exactly will depend on the average visitor behaviour and how the images are included. (for reference, the forum page itself is loaded from forums.macrumors.com but attachments are loaded from att.macrumors.com.)
A single 50 post page with images included via img/timg tags and/or no attachments will generate less load than two 25 post pages.
A single 50 post page with attachments spread over all the posts will generate less load on the forum server but greater "burst" load on the attachment server, compared with two 25 post pages. Although, averaged over all the visitors this effect may be lessened.
However, if the 25 post-per-page visitor looks at the first page and decides not to look at the second page, that will always generate less load than the single 50 post page.
So in answer to your question... yes, and no, at the same time
Ahh thanks Knox. I was just wondering if the 'burst' loads would be worse than the overall load of having a page split up... I guess it probably doesn't matter anyway.
That makes a lot of sense. I'd personally prefer a larger number if it imposed minimal strain on the system. I've even used 100 elsewhere when I was permitted to do so!
i'm at 30 right now, but might have to up it considering threads seem to get longer faster than they used to, or i just don't read fast enough or something.
If only a single person was browsing the forum it would be worse, but with lots of people browsing the effect would be lessened a bit. With smaller pages and more page views there is more chance of more than one person loading a page at approximately the same time. E.g. if two people loaded two 25 post pages both with 10 attachments on them it would be approximately the same as one person loading a 50 post page with 20 attachments. With bigger pages & viewer page views the chance of that clash reduces, although of course when a clash did happen then the server would be dealing with 40 attachments at the same time.
The attachment server mostly copes these days, apart from when attachment heavy threads are put on the front page or appear on digg etc. Of course, at those times the majority of hits are from guests who are locked at 25 posts per page anyway.
I use 40 at the moment, but would gladly use more - I find it much easier to keep track of discussions if I don't have to flick between pages.
Working that out exactly will depend on the average visitor behaviour and how the images are included. (for reference, the forum page itself is loaded from forums.macrumors.com but attachments are loaded from att.macrumors.com.)
A single 50 post page with images included via img/timg tags and/or no attachments will generate less load than two 25 post pages.
A single 50 post page with attachments spread over all the posts will generate less load on the forum server but greater "burst" load on the attachment server, compared with two 25 post pages. Although, averaged over all the visitors this effect may be lessened.
However, if the 25 post-per-page visitor looks at the first page and decides not to look at the second page, that will always generate less load than the single 50 post page.
So in answer to your question... yes, and no, at the same time
Thanks for answering my question in such detail
Thank you for answering my question. This old topic seemed to suggest there was an option.
There was an option, but there was a switch to different board software in the 2014-2015-ish time frame.