slow website

[sask]

I know I'm not in the city on a really high speed
system, but this site is so slow to load - can't it be
fixed?

[Fransisco]

Some days seem to be worse than others. I don't think the problem is on your(our)end. My guess is that when there is a hot topic and a lot of people looking in the server gets overloaded and things slow down.

What leads me to believe this is that I notice times when I can't get on to agriville but have no problem getting on to or viewing other sites.

[wilagro]

Its usually worse when there are too many "turkeys" from Manitoba on line and posting using HTML.

[sask]

yes, for sure it is slower some times over others. There
are times I can't get on at all.

[charliep]

Joe provided the following comments a little while back.

Hi Everyone:

We have been working carefully to try and speed up the discussion forums with out disrupting the site...we have reduced the number of threads in the database being called up when coming to the various forums - hopefully this will help a little - we are also working to migrate to a newer faster internet server but will have to be careful to make sure the software works before we migrate everything over...we will try to keep you posted.

Thanks,

The Farms.com Tech team.
IP: Logged
Edit?

joedales posted Mar 23, 2007 10:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another bit of advice as we are working on the site...

The more responses to each discussion topic - the more work the server has to do pulling from the database - so a discussion topic with 30 responses will take a lot longer to load then one with 5- 10 responses...

We may want to manage the longer threads with starting new topics when we it gets a little slow.

Thanks and keep in touch,

Joe and Farms.com Team

[wilagro]

Here's one.
Like to hear Evader's thoughts on it.

Problem:
Pooled prices (PRO) always lag the spot price in a rising market, making it less attractive to farmers.

Solution:
If the CWB feels to have a pool is the only way, then the pooled prices should be unpriced - basis only.
The CWB could offer an initial payment of say $25 over WCE futures for feed barley basis instore Vancouver. As the market rallies (reflected in the futures), the net payment from the CWB pool will also rally.

Farmers would price at their own discretion (just like non-CWB crops). CWB could also provide the option of a fixed price initial (like they have now) for those that want it.

Could also have shorter pool periods.

[chaffmeister]

Here's one.
Like to hear Evader's thoughts on it.

Problem:
Pooled prices (PRO) always lag the spot price in a rising market, making it less attractive to farmers.

Solution:
If the CWB feels to have a pool is the only way, then the pooled prices should be unpriced - basis only.
The CWB could offer an initial payment of say $25 over WCE futures for feed barley basis instore Vancouver. As the market rallies (reflected in the futures), the net payment from the CWB pool will also rally.

Farmers would price at their own discretion (just like non-CWB crops). CWB could also provide the option of a fixed price initial (like they have now) for those that want it.

Could also have shorter pool periods.

[Vader]

Yes I support shorter pool periods. This would bring us closer to a cash pricing model.

Perhaps everyone who stays in the pool should be on a 100% EPO. No initial. No waiting for interim payments. Just a top up at the end if the pool exceeds the 100% level.

I would support a no cost export licence for producers shipping containers offshore to end users. No grain company involvement. Strictly for niche marketing. Same for wheat.

I would support the CWB being a selector of malt barley. The risk of germination going off during winter and spring could then be absorbed by the pool. Perhaps this would need to be a separtate pool so that this risk management strategy would not impact on the traditional pool.

You guys on here should be lobbying with Strahl's appointees for changes to the way the CWB handles barley in case the Minister cannot deliver on his dual market promise. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. I haven't seen any sign of innovative thinking from these guys since they have been on our board. All they want to do is be Strahl's enforcers.

I'll say again. Get your applications for access to information in and see how directors vote. You'll be surprised.

[chaffmeister]

Would've been nice to get a response about the basis pool. The shorter pool periods don't solve the problem - just makes 'em smaller.

[chaffmeister]

<i>I would support a no cost export licence for producers shipping containers offshore to end users. No grain company involvement. Strictly for niche marketing. Same for wheat. </i>

How 'bout organics? That's a niche market, no?

[sask]

shorter pool periods just make the problems shorter.
That's it?

[AdamSmith]

Vader said,

"...in case the Minister cannot deliver on his dual market promise."

Vader, if the Minister makes the necessary regulatory changes to remove barley from the cwb's jurisdiction he will have fulfilled his promise.

This is going to happen.

Should the CWB successfully block these changes in court, not one farmer will blame him for failing to honour an election promise. The blame will lay squarely on the shoulders of the CWB BOD's.

A majority of farmers don't want the CWB to have a monopoly in barley, you can rationalize the outcome all you want, but it is what it is, and the more the CWB BOD's fight this the more the CWB loses.

Have you guys even considered the negative side to your position? Think of wheat. Now if I was PMSH or Minister Strahl and I knew that when it comes time to tackle wheat the outcome of a plebiscite would only lead to court action and still wouldn't achieve their desired outcome of a free market, what are the odds that they will go down that road? I'd say close to zip. If I were them I'd just kill the CWB Act altogether. You kill the Act you kill any law that requires a plebiscite.

The odds of a Conservative majority are greater today than they've ever been, what are the odds of a Conservative majority government continuing to put up with an agency that trashes them at every opportunity?

You may say there is no certainty in what the election outcome might be, and you would be right but to ignore the risks and to chart a course that will almost guarantee the total demise of the cwb as you know it seem to me to be the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber.

But let's say every court action you attempt is successful and the election outcome goes in your favour, the CWB still has to deal with the 62% of farmers and probably 85% of the grain who don't want the CWB to have a monopoly in barley. We don't want the CWB to have a monopoly Vader, and how long do you think the cwb can continue ramming something down farmers throats, for God's sake man, you've admitted that ten years of propaganda and rearranging the deck chairs has done nothing to change how farmers feel about the cwb.

Vader, In the last ten years, I suspect that yourself and Ken Ritter are the only two farmers in the three prairie provinces who have changed their position from advocating a free market to supporting the monopoly. How many millions have been spent of farmers money Vader in trying to change opinions? How many millions more are you guys planning on spending? Can you not see how futile that process is? Can you not see how immoral that is?

Vader the opportunity to fix the cwb came and went a long time ago. The issue today is either exist in an open market or don't exist in an open market. And soon enough, this is what the end play will be and please don't kid yourself because the more games the CWB plays and the more time and money the CWB spends trying to avoid the unavoidable, the greater the number of people there will be that will accept concept of no cwb at all.

[wd9]

Right Joe, so it is going to take .00004 seconds instead of .00005 seconds with a few less posts from a well indexed database. This site isn't that big.

[AdamSmith]

Come to think of it, not only will they accept the concept of no cwb at all, THEY WILL DEMAND IT.

[AdamSmith]

Vader, I probably asked way too many questions in above post and obviously some of those where rhetorical but I am serious about the first question I asked, so I'll re-ask it.

Have you guys (the CWB BOD's)even considered the negative side to your position? ie the "down side" if your strategy doesn't work the way you hope it will. And what are they as the CWB BOD's see them to be?