I think this is still repercussions from the fandom suspension impact. They are probably still massively restoring journals, and people are still commenting like crazy on it, which is slowing everything down. Truthfully, what they did didn't bother me much (and I still plan to get a permanent account when they go on sale on 6/7). I haven't had trouble with long posts, except that sometimes I have to try twice with semagic.
It's got to be at their end. It's hitting too many people and too many interfaces.
They don't say if they have characterized the "some users" problem. I wish they would at least give some sort of update. "We're working on it" gets old after a while. It's not just the after-effects of their mass deletions, because we had the same problem last week too.
The deletion aftermath might be affecting it, but they had the same problem last week, before that hit, so they also have a deeper problem. I'm guessing they didn't fix it then but got lucky and it went away -- but not for long.
If only "some users" are being affected, how hard would it be to post an informative status message? If there are work-arounds, what are they?
You should subscribe to the_lj_herald. In any case, take a look at this post (http://community.livejournal.com/the_lj_herald/46244.html). It is a DDOS attack.
No, I'm pretty sure that's not it -- it's not slowness, it's a limit. It's 100% consistent for some of us: I haven't worked out the exact maximum, but it's something like a 500 - 1000 character limit. Anything over that simply hangs silently for me, no matter the posting UI, post vs. comment, post vs. preview, or anything...
If you read lj_maintenance or the_lj_herald, you'll see that LJ is under a Distributed Denial of Service attack. Of course, all of the folks in the various "Strikethrough 07" communities think it is some sort of additional problem, and they want loads of compensation for it :-), but those of us who work with computers understand it quite well.
Oh, I'm well aware that it's a response to the DDoS (see my own journal for a modest amount of discussion). I'm still trying to figure out what the motivation for the short-entries-only rule is, though. I do this for a living, and it's a somewhat odd response to the problem. My best guess is that they're limiting to a single IP packet, but I can't quite figure out *why*...
So you do computer security for a living? So I do. You should see the posts under my tag "security". I'm not sure their motivation for the short entries only.
Among other things, anyway. We're a bit too small to have a dedicated security person, but the other Architect and I both keep a close eye on the security equation. (Admittedly, he's more focused on the packets, and I'm more focused on the injection attacks these days...)
I remember seeing your post on botnet attacks. I'd love to get a tutorial on botnets for ACSAC (http://www.acsac.org/), for which I'm tutorial chair (hint hint... the deadline has been extended to this coming Sunday)
Nah, I'm not the guy to give it -- I'm decently knowledgeable, but no expert. You have to keep in mind, I'm a hardcore generalist: that's why I like swimming in the startup pool, where a really broad grounding is usually what's needed. So I'm great at the big picture, and at designing and engineering systems, but I'm rarely the person to be lecturing on a focused topic...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellio
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 09:41 pm (UTC)Something's not working right at their end, and I'll bet a lot of people are impacted.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 09:52 pm (UTC)They don't say if they have characterized the "some users" problem. I wish they would at least give some sort of update. "We're working on it" gets old after a while. It's not just the after-effects of their mass deletions, because we had the same problem last week too.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 09:57 pm (UTC)If only "some users" are being affected, how hard would it be to post an informative status message? If there are work-arounds, what are they?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 10:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 10:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-01 10:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-04 07:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-04 08:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 12:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 01:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 04:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 04:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 04:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 01:12 pm (UTC)