Should I go (2.0) or should I stay (1.9)

Should I go (2.0) or should I stay (1.9)

by Rubens Ramos -
Number of replies: 2

Hello all,

I´m and Engineering professor at a Federal University in Brazil, using moodle 1.9 as a stragegy for teaching my courses as b-learning (at the classroom and on line). I´ve been using moodle since 2007.

Since December 2010 I´ve been testing the 2.0.1 release in an upgrade from my 1.9 site. After some little issues, I´ve got 2.0.1 up and running.

For us in Brazil this months (december, january) is the vacation time (summer) and the University classes for the 2011 first semester begin this month (february). The vacation was an ideal time to move on and upgrade, and so I did it.

Well, the excitment with the new version is almost gone for now because three annoying things that made me get back to 1.9 and stay in there at least one semester more. The main annoying things, for me, are:

1) Slow, slower, too much slow. 2.0 is slower, sometimes very slower than 1.9. Sometimes it is so too slow that hangs the browser (IE, FF,…). Not good at all.

2) Backup errors, Backup fine/Restore errors. I´ve experienced a lot of problems with back/restore courses, a critical issue for me as new courses offering is better created with a full restore and later little changes or improvements.

3) Where my files? Downloading repositories.... The new file management system has its appeal, but we lost flexibility and easiness.

The first one (slow, very slow) appears to be caused by the new navigation feature (mainly) and, as I´ve noted in the logs from the web server, also for missing images files. But the point is, 2.0 as we have now, is slower in a way more than acceptable to move up.

The backup/restore issue is critical to me, as a professor also.

The new file management approach is nice and a good idea in terms of saving disk spaces, external files, etc, but is not very intuitive, the small icons to manipulate them (delete, for instance)... and lack the easy way that a professor load and reach his or hers files in the server, as in 1.9.

Well, for me, for now, I stay with 1.9, that appears a little ugly now compared with 2.0, but is faster, reliable, and I got the back/restore smoothly as usual.

Regards.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Rubens Ramos

Re: Should I go (2.0) or should I stay (1.9)

by Derek Chirnside -

Rubens, you say "2) Backup errors, Backup fine/Restore errors. I´ve experienced a lot of problems with back/restore courses, a critical issue for me as new courses offering is better created with a full restore and later little changes or improvements"

Can you clarify: is this backup from a virgin course in 2 (ie no importing from 1.9) and restore to 2?

Or is is backup from 1.9 or an imported 1.9 in 2?

And: what problems in particular.

And you say"I´ve noted in the logs from the web server, also for missing images files" missing image files?  does this slow down a server?  Are these missing from some sort of 1.9 > 2.0 import process?

-Derek
(Yes, sorry I know this is not quite the right forum)

In reply to Derek Chirnside

Re: Should I go (2.0) or should I stay (1.9)

by Rubens Ramos -

Hi Derek,

About your reply.

1. Backup/Restore. The main problems appears to be from 1.9 (upgraded) to 2.0. It means, the courses on the moodle 2.0 that are there in an upgrading process from 1.9 to 2.0. I did a backup/restore for a new course (but with a few materials) and it have worked fine. I don´t know if it was a matter of the simplicity of the course or because it was a backup/restore processo from a courses created in 2.0 to 2.0. I will test more.

2. Image files missing. I´ve found this "images missing files" in a all brand new 2.0.1+ installed site (not upgraded from 1.9).  The image files missing is related to themes (all, including standard). In Apache log it appears clearly. In IIS log I have in addition the time that the server stays with the error (1 to 3 ms for each file missing, usually 10 files missing). But a regular click for a navigation last for 2000 ms and more the first time. After loaded, it´s fast. Missing files appears to be an easy thing to fix, but the current navigation code is a major issue. I don´t know, maybe a true AJAX strategy (downloading a xml navigation file right the way the user logs, checking versions in case of not changes) could be a way for a solution.

Neverthless, I will keep tracking the 2.0 evolution and will go 2.0 as soon this issues had been improved. For a while, I should stay with 1.9. (I´m sorry having no time to help more in improve it).

Best regards,

Rubens