[Box-Admins] Re: [squeak-dev] SqueakSource.com home page (was: Fix for OSProcess - Where to commit?)

Fri Nov 15 02:58:17 UTC 2013

The only time I would have available within Ken's hours would be 3-5PM Saturday.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:
> I'm on Central Standard Time.  At the moment the only time I know of
> that won't work for me is from about 11AM to 2 or 3PM CST on Saturday.
>
> Ken
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Box-Admins] Re: [squeak-dev] SqueakSource.com home page
>> (was: Fix for OSProcess - Where to commit?)
>> From: "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> Date: Thu, November 14, 2013 8:21 pm
>> To: Squeak Hosting Support <box-admins at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Ken,
>>
>> Let's try for some time this weekend. I am in Eastern Standard Time
>> (Michigan USA). Please give me a time that will work for you. I do not
>> have a computer that works with Google Chat (*), but I can boot into
>> Windows for a while to get access.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> (*) Even my google phone does not work, because the battery runs dead
>> if I install Google+. I had a perfectly good Chrome browser on my Linux
>> machine which suddenly refused to do gmail or google anything else until
>> I upgraded the browser. So I upgraded it and got a shiny new version of
>> Chrome that does not run on my system because my system is "too old".
>> This is just like Microsoft all over again, I have no patience for it.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:52:09PM -0700, Ken Causey wrote:
>> > David,
>> >
>> > Probably this is entirely unrelated, but...
>> >
>> > For the last several days, a week or more I guess, we've had a problem
>> > with source.squeak.org and I begin to wonder if there is not some common
>> > denominator here.  In brief the source.squeak.org process will not run
>> > under supervise, the exact behavior has varied as I've tried different
>> > things, but most commonly the squeak process ends up as a defunct
>> > process (it 'dies' but supervise doesn't realize it has).  I frankly
>> > haven't spent a lot of time trying to work out what is going wrong, for
>> > now I'm just starting it manually.  I feel like I must be missing
>> > something obvious...
>> >
>> > I wonder if sometime over the weekend or perhaps next week you might
>> > have some time to chat with me, perhaps over Google Chat?  Perhaps
>> > between the two of us we can improve both source.squeak.org and
>> > squeaksource.com.
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > P.S. For those wondering, I can't email David directly, probably because
>> > my SPF is fouled up or his provider doesn't like GoDaddy (who does? and
>> > don't ask).  The last I heard though he does get my email through the
>> > list.
>> >
>> > > -------- Original Message --------
>> > > Subject: [Box-Admins] Re: [squeak-dev] SqueakSource.com home page (was:
>> > > Fix for OSProcess - Where to commit?)
>> > > From: "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> > > Date: Thu, November 14, 2013 7:26 pm
>> > > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> > > <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>> > > Cc: box-admins at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The image is now showing 10 session handler processes in the process
>> > > browser. Presumably these are related to the failed upload requests.
>> > >
>> > > I do not understand the cause of this problem, and it may be that I
>> > > should revert the changes that I did earlier today (in which I put
>> > > squeaksource under the control of the supervise(8) for starting the
>> > > image).
>> > >
>> > > But I suspect that the problem lies elsewhere, so for I will make
>> > > a copy of the broken image for debugging, then terminate the excess
>> > > processes. This should clear the problem temporarily. I will follow
>> > > up with another email within about 30 minutes.
>> > >
>> > > Dave
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:28:18AM +0100, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>> > > > Thanks David, it went back to normal speed for a moment, but is now
>> > > > rejecting my upload requests again (most will timeout, some do work
>> > > > intermittently)...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2013/11/14 David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:55:55PM +0100, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>> > > > > > Yes, let's remove the alarms.
>> > > > > > But it has to be functional.
>> > > > > > Currently, I can connect on the web interface and I can download, but all
>> > > > > > my upload are failing with timeout... Any idea?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I made some changes to the launch script for squeaksource.com earlier
>> > > > > today:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/box-admins/2013-November/001598.html
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It is possible that this may be related to the problem you are seeing (I am
>> > > > > not sure at this point).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I tried loading some packages from squeaksource a few minutes ago, and it
>> > > > > was slow but functional. However, checking the image I see 15 active
>> > > > > SSession handlers in a ProcessBrowser. This is not right, and it appears
>> > > > > to be a recurrence of a problem that we have seen previously on an
>> > > > > intermittent
>> > > > > basis, both on squeaksource.com and (probably) on source.squeak.org.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I will terminate the runaway session handler processes, which I hope will
>> > > > > clear up the immediate problem.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > More to follow I'm sure ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dave
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2013/11/14 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 14.11.2013, at 13:04, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> The welcome (sic) message on the SqueakSource home page is overly
>> > > > > > > alarming,
>> > > > > > > >> and IMHO should be changed to something that encourages new
>> > > > > projects to
>> > > > > > > >> be created elsewhere, but that does not cause alarm for existing
>> > > > > usurs.
>> > > > > > > >> But that is a policy decision, and I will defer to the Squeak board
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > >> the Squeak community on this.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I think we should we should delete the "ATTENTION!" line but leave
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > note about creation of projects being disabled.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yep.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - Bert -
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > >