may be I should repeat it since andreas pointed to Gemstone as a way  
to pay for service, but may be
it would be time to collect some money to get someone working on  
these problems:
	makeing ss robust and fixing what should be fixed in VM/Kernel.
ESUG is really to spend money for that.

Stef


On 24 déc. 07, at 00:36, Philippe Marschall wrote:

> 2007/12/23, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>> Philippe Marschall wrote:
>>> So which parts do we need to fix to make the Semaphore, Socket and
>>> image freezing problems go away?
>>
>> For semaphores I'd recommend the fixes that I've posted over the  
>> year.
>> For sockets I am not aware of any evidence that indicate a socket  
>> issue
>> (we had a few issues that at first looked like sockets were  
>> related but
>> turned out not) but I'd like to hear any evidence that points to  
>> sockets
>> as the cause of problems. As far as I can tell the socket  
>> implementation
>> is very robust right now. For image freezes -in particular in
>> Squeaksource- you probably need to fix the concurrency issues in
>> Squeaksource itself. The last time I checked the code was not robust
>> enough by far against concurrent modifications (parallel commits  
>> etc).
>>
>>> As for scaling and production quality do you seriously expect me  
>>> to do
>>> this for free in my spare time?
>>
>> That depends on whether or not you seriously expect for example  
>> the VM
>> people to fix the VM problems in their spare time for free. If the
>> answer is yes, then the answer is yes.
>
> Well I can honestly say that SqS is not production quality. It has no
> serious persistence (the main installation on Squeak) and we make to
> guarantees in this regard. The "storage" leaves several things to be
> desired. We do write the .mcz to disk and back it put so there is
> limit to the damage a broken image can cause. If you are uneasy with
> this, don't use it. It has several stability issues which we believe
> are not due to bugs in our code but in the Squeak-Kernel/VM. But we
> never pretended otherwise, we never said there are no issues. We never
> said "rock stable, no known bugs for years". If you ask on this list
> if Squeak is production ready, how many of the VM maintainers are that
> frank and say no?
>
>>> We fixed performance the problems and now run seriously faster than
>>> source.impara.de while being much bigger.
>>
>> That's great to hear. I wish you would have told me a couple of  
>> months
>> ago how to achieve that when I was asking (repeatedly) the same  
>> questions.
>
> What I was talking about is pure rendering performance. You get this
> by loading the latest version, this was true several months ago as it
> is now. If you use the Impara fork, well talk to the Impara guys. From
> the description of your problems I got the impression  that the issues
> you faced had much more to do with "persistence" and the issues we
> face (general stability). As for persistence there is a Magma backend
> which I pointed you at. AFAIK this has seen no action which I also
> mentioned.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
>