Brandon,yeah,I completely agree with you,why people spend so many time comparing these two great sites-they are both good!
BT Rep: +25
Brandon,yeah,I completely agree with you,why people spend so many time comparing these two great sites-they are both good!
BT Rep: +3
Heres a simple test i ran, personally i dont think page speeds matter as long as it doesnt take 10-20 secs to load. Both trackers still have excellent tracker speeds so...
AVERAGES
SCT:
Homepage: 0.4686s (0.470,0.422,0.514)
Browse 1: 1.5400s (1.000,1.650,1.970)
Browse 2: 1.2786s (1.146,1.690,1.000)
Forums : 0.5473s (0.662,0.490,0.490)
Staff : 0.6686s (0.840,0.610,0.556)
FTN: Homepage: 2.7743s (3.340,2.574,2.409)
Browse 1: 2.5440s (2.125,3.203,2.304)
Browse 2: 2.3690s (2.243,2.573,2.291)
Forums : 1.7976s (2.790,1.346,1.257)
Staff : 2.4680s (4.830,1.274,1.300)
Last edited by the_boss; 10-07-2007 at 08:54 PM.
still employed
BT Rep: +35
i agreeOriginally Posted by Polarbear
don't mention it
Brandon : go and scrape your linux and get a leopard
Left out
.
BT Rep: +11
FSC is a great place to chill, but i don'ty use it for 0day. I like site's that i visit 50 times a day for 0day to load fast. Well i was exagerating ,it's not really that slow.I'm curious how you can say that, and then I see you're all over FSC. You DO realize fsc is hosted in the exact same datacenter with similar specs.... right...? :hmm:
still employed
BT Rep: +35
crap
u changed the fromat, it was really crap
Last edited by ibnahmed; 10-07-2007 at 08:58 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Left out
Poster
BT Rep: +7
yeah is that http or https ??
deep funk
BT Rep: +5
for me https was significantly slower
edit: they don't punish people who invite leechers. that's nice.
Last edited by Polarbear; 10-07-2007 at 09:08 PM.
both slow =/
Member
BT Rep: +30
just got that message lolScT increased user database to 16k users
“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks