On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:00 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> Attached is a screen shot of the process browser in the squeaksource.com
> image, showing the excess SSSession processes. They are deadlocked on
> accessing DateAndTime now, which contains a critical section using the
> LastTickSemaphore in class DateAndTime.
>
> In the squeaksource.com image, LastTickSemaphore has 0 excess signals,
> whereas in other images I look at, it has 1 excess signal. This looks
> to me like a mutex that has gotten confused.

This might be a problem I think I observed with using Seaside's
#returnResponse: inside a Mutex's critical: block.  The block is
entered, the Sema waited but never resignaled, leaving all subsequent
processes stuck waiting.

> I sent a signal to LastTickSemaphore in class DateAndTime, and now it
> looks like a mutex again. Let's see if that clears the problem.
>
> This certainly has a bad smell about it :-(  But I note also that
> we are running our SqueakSource services on older images, and a number
> of changes have been made to DateAndTime since then.
>
> Nicolas, I will send private email to give you the VNC password for access
> to the squeaksource.com image in case you need it (I am going to get some
> sleep soon).
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:26:45PM -0500, David T. Lewis wrote:
>> 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 -
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> >
>
>
>