[Box-Admins] box3.squeak.org off line - HELP neeeded

[Levente Uzonyi]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, David T. Lewis wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:06:09PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:54:05PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>>>>>> I just deployed an updated image for "new trunk" at
>>>>>> box4.squeak.org:8888/trunk.  This is the one that uses the Magma
>>>>>> backend.  I haven't done any benchmarks but the response time seems
>>>>>> pretty snappy, even compared to regular source.squeak.org.  Could be
>>>>>> due to Cog, the Magma backend, or box4 being under less load than
>>>>>> box3.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be all of the above. I'm thinking that the priority for the
>>>>> squeaksource.com image is to first get it up to date to the level of
>>>>> source.squeak.org, then at our leisure we can bring both of them together
>>>>> up to a the level that you are demonstarting with Cog and Magma. But
>>>>> the main thing is to get squeaksource.com stable, which is not yet the case.
>>>>
>>>> source.squeak.org is getting slow too, and it runs on an old image.
>>>> The work I've done to bring it to a trunk image under Cog is based on
>>>> the source.squeak.org image, and really not that many changes.
>>>>
>>>>> It turns out that the following snippet from the workspace that SCG provided
>>>>> took care of the problem for now:
>>>>>
>>>>>         " kill runaway processes "
>>>>>         ProcessBrowser open.
>>>>>         Process allInstances do: [ :each |
>>>>>                 each priority = 30 ifTrue: [
>>>>>                         each terminate ] ].
>>>>
>>>> OMG!  No wonder SS has so many problems if it is so unloved that
>>>> someone would arbitrarily kill processes based on their priority!
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's just something I found in the workspace that came with the image.
>>> I figured it must be there for a reason, so I tried it and it "fixed"
>>> the problem.
>>>
>>> You are right about one thing - SS was not getting much love. Even I, who
>>> knew absolutely nothing about SqueakSource before I volunteered to move
>>> it, was able to fix some of the worst problems. That's why I am confident
>>> that we can get it running reliably once we have given it a little bit
>>> of long-overdue attention.
>>>
>>>>> So I'm guessing that some Seaside handler got wedged, presumably concurrent
>>>>> with an excessive memory usage condition, and it probably failed in some way
>>>>> that did not let the garbage collector clean up the mess.
>>>>
>>>> SS forks the email out to Project subscribers at priority 30. See
>>>> SSEMailSubscription>>#versionAdded:to:.  I wonder whether that's what
>>>> those were?
>>>
>>> Outbound mail notification from squeaksource.com is disabled, so that
>>> should not have been a concern.
>>
>> Which switch are you referring to that is "disabled"?  Did you check
>> SSProject>>#versionAdded:?  For the path of someone saving a version,
>> it _unconditionally_ sends out mail to all subscribers, there is no
>> single switch to disable that..
>>
>
> I found was some attribute that I set false, which seems to control it globally.
>
>>> Note, I still need help from someone with access to box2 to enable mail
>>> delivery. I don't want to install an entire mail system on box3 just
>>> to handle notifications from squeaksource on box3, so I expect that
>>> configuring box2 to accept smtp from box3 would be the right thing
>>> to do.
>>
>> Is SMTP support not already part of box3?  Seems like a relatively
>> basic service we're gonna want at some point because we want to be
>> focusing on transitioning all responsibilities away from box2 toward
>> box3 and box4 anyway.
>
> No, mail is not installed on box3. I would be happy either way, all I
> want is a place to route the mail and currently that seems to be box2.
> I don't mind installing mail on box3 if that is the right thing to do,
> but I would need some guidance as to what package to install (exim?).
> I don't currently have access to box4 or box2, so I don't know our
> current setup and I don't want to take a guess and install the wrong
> package.

AFAIK the services of box2 - including the email services - are planned to 
be moved to box4, and not to box3.


Levente

P.S.: IMHO properly installing and configuring a mailing system is rather 
hard. A small mistake can result in sending lots of spam in a very short 
time.

>
> Dave
>
>