Try to view http://e926.net/
and get

*A* "500 - internal server error"
"The server has encountered an error and cannot complete your request. Probably due to a typo in the code...
Alternatively, you're seeing this because the server cannot handle all of the requests it's getting right now. "

Tried again about two minutes later and got LONG error page:
(I'll just copy&paste the top 2% of the error webpage for now)

"passenger
rails deployment that just works
Web application could not be started

/home/e621/e926-production/release-2014-06-07/app/models/post/image_store/amazon_s3.rb:43: dynamic constant assignment
BUKIT_NAEM = CONFIG["amazon_s3_bucket_name"]
^ (SyntaxError)
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/backports-3.6.0/lib/backports/tools.rb:343:in require_without_backports' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/backports-3.6.0/lib/backports/tools.rb:343:in require'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.18/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:184:in require' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.18/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:291:in require_or_load'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.18/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:250:in depend_on' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.18/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:162:in require_dependency'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:414:in load_application_classes' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:413:in each'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:413:in load_application_classes' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:411:in each'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:411:in load_application_classes' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:197:in process'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:113:in send' /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.18/lib/initializer.rb:113:in run'
./config/environment.rb:6
config.ru:1:in require' config.ru:1 /opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.6/lib/rack/builder.rb:46:in instance_eval'
/opt/rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2012.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.6/lib/rack/builder.rb:46:in initialize' config.ru:1:in new'
config.ru:1

Application root
/home/e621/e926-production/current"

Thank you, I have notified the dev team.

*quickly looks to see what the server is running*

Memory usage:

Mem: 32000

Neat. I'm assuming that's GB?

parasprite said:
*quickly looks to see what the server is running*

Neat. I'm assuming that's GB?

32 thousand gigabyte RAM?

NotMeNotYou said:
32 thousand gigabyte RAM?

Wouldn't a thousand gigabytes be a peda terabyte? (edit: Derp)

Anyway, yeah, that would be a ridiculous amount of RAM. Completely unnecessary, if even technologically possible.

NotMeNotYou said:
32 thousand gigabyte RAM?

yes

Tokaido said:
Wouldn't a thousand gigabytes be a pedabyte?

Anyway, yeah, that would be a ridiculous amount of RAM. Completely unnecessary, if even technologically possible.

;_;

But seriously I'm a bit sleep deprived and for some reason I was thinking storage space.

Which now that I think about it would still be completely ridiculous for e6 to have laying around...but in a budgeting sort of way.

parasprite said:
yes

;_;

But seriously I'm a bit sleep deprived and for some reason I was thinking storage space.

Which now that I think about it would still be completely ridiculous for e6 to have laying around...but in a budgeting sort of way.

Oooh, you were thinking "hard drive space" kind of memory. Sorry, when you said memory I jumped to RAM for some reason, I think that's just usually used as the short hand for RAM is all, but now I see what you're saying. Yeah, I could see them having that lying around for free space to save stuff on, probably a lot more. I have no idea how many bytes e6 uses to function, but I wouldn't be surprised if it required a few pedabytes of storage.

(BTW, I was wrong earlier. 1000 GB is about 1 Terabyte, and 1000 TB is 1 Petabyte. Derp)

Tokaido said:
Oooh, you were thinking "hard drive space" kind of memory. Sorry, when you said memory I jumped to RAM for some reason, I think that's just usually used as the short hand for RAM is all, but now I see what you're saying.

It's not something I would have ever expected to mix up.

Yeah, I could see them having that lying around for free space to save stuff on, probably a lot more. I have no idea how many bytes e6 uses to function, but I wouldn't be surprised if it required a few pedabytes of storage.

(BTW, I was wrong earlier. 1000 GB is about 1 Terabyte, and 1000 TB is 1 Petabyte. Derp)

Well. If that 32000 pretend GB were all taken right the average post size would be 62.35 MB.

So I'm guessing 2-3 TB

Tokaido said:
Wouldn't a thousand gigabytes be a peda terabyte? (edit: Derp)

Anyway, yeah, that would be a ridiculous amount of RAM. Completely unnecessary, if even technologically possible.

You could play Crysis on like, medium settings maybe...(I joke)

Moon_Moon said:
Also, I thought it was like 1024 Xbytes to bump up each step?

It is, sort of.

There are actually two similar scales: KB/MB/TB/PB, which is 1024-based and is used for memory, and KiB/MiB/TiB/PiB which is 1000-based and is used for hard drives. There is also Ko/Mo/To/Po, which is synonymous with KB/MB/TB/PB but more or less historical AFAIK.

Moon_Moon said:
You could play Crysis on like, medium settings maybe...(I joke)

Also, I thought it was like 1024 Xbytes to bump up each step?

See, I knew someone would question that! That's why I said "1000 GB is about 1 Terabyte" in my original reply, lol. Savageorange pretty much said what I would have though, though I'll add that most drives go off of traditional bytes, ie 1024 bump to the next metric level instead of the traditional 1000. The reason they are based of of 1024 is mostly because computers think in binary instead of 10s, so the closest number to 1000 that's "easy" to count to would be 1024. That's an oversimplification, but gets the idea across.

Tokaido said:
See, I knew someone would question that! That's why I said "1000 GB is about 1 Terabyte" in my original reply, lol. Savageorange pretty much said what I would have though, though I'll add that most drives go off of traditional bytes, ie 1024 bump to the next metric level instead of the traditional 1000. The reason they are based of of 1024 is mostly because computers think in binary instead of 10s, so the closest number to 1000 that's "easy" to count to would be 1024. That's an oversimplification, but gets the idea across.

Oh, you're talking about sector size. Good point, that is 1024-based even though classic hard drive -sizes- are 1000-based. Not sure about SSDs and USB keys though, since they're actually a kind of memory they might be 1024-based.