>>7859815 (LB)

>>7859838 (LB)

I've been around.

There were a fairly small number of long gaps in Q's posting. And there have been a fairly small number of major multi-hour technical mishaps. Both ~dozenish. The coincidence of two fairly rare events is interesting to me.

>>7859726

>ddos?

I don't think so. A DDOS would cause general difficulty accessing the site. We're seeing data fail to be retrieved from the backend database so that it can be assembled into and presented as a webpage. The problems are internal.>>7859726

>>7859936

Q's reappearance and the board going wonky I think are connected. But I don't think one caused the other. I think there is a third factor that is causing both. Something is about to happen.

>>7860121

>If this were a DDOS, I would think we'd only see clearnet affected by it.

I don't know how Ron setup the system. But I suspect that Tor was just a fallback for DNS deplatforming and that it's all the same server(s) at the end of the same pipe. If a DDOS if plugging up that pipe then it would affect both access methods the same way. A more clever, but more expensive, option is to put the Tor hidden service on a different pipe from a different ISP so that I could remain accessible during a siege of the main gate. But I don't think that's how it's setup.

This site is very likely many servers in one datacenter all talking to each other. One or more database/backup, some web frontends to built the HTML, and some bulk image servers. It seems like they're having a problem with these computers not being able to communicate. Pages seem to be loading at normal speed. So I don't think it's as simple as a big botnet trying to clobber 8kun's IP addresses.