Hello all,
I'm just working on Contact Us form:
http://squeaksite.aidaweb.si/ContactUs/
On form a type of message can be selected and so far I see next possible
types:
^#( 'newbie question'
'technical question'
'suggestion, comment'
'for Squeak community'
'for website maintainers'
'for Squeak Leadership')
6 so far, so we cannot add much more. Have you idea what types should
be? Which one to add, rename, remove, merge..?
Which one should be default? 'suggestion, comment'?
Janko
--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
>> David T. Lewis pravi:
>>> Janko Mivšek wrote:
>>>> This image is running now for months, that's why its restart could help
>>>> here. But finding the real cause of this trouble, well, this would be
>>>> just perfect! Anyone has an idea what can be a problem?
>>> Socket leak? Keep an eye on the contents of /proc/<squeakpid>/fd/ and see
>>> if open file descriptors are accumulating. If so, you will reach a limit
>>> (usually 1024) after which no new connections will be possible.
>> Yep, that's it, I just counted it: 1024 and dropped to 764 after Swazoo
>> restart.
This problem is now solved simply after restarting the image. Now the
open sockets vary from 20 to 300 and jump back to low every hour when
the image is snapshoted.
But the problem will repeat after few months again, because we somehow
leak sockets, as David said. I didn't manage to find the reason, not the
offending sockets in image. But ok, restarting the image every few
months is good enough solution for now.
Thanks David for help!
Best regards
Janko
>>
>> So, first question: how to close those remaining 764 open sockets
>> without restarting the image,
>
> The socket file descriptors that you see listed in /proc/<squeakpid>/fd/ are
> file descriptors that have been opened by the Squeak VM, and that have not been
> properly closed when no longer in use. If you can find the objects in the
> running image that were responsible for opening these descriptors (possibly
> this is "Socket allSubInstances"), then you can probably close them. Otherwise,
> if finalizers have been set up, a garbage collection may cause them to be
> closed.
>
>> second: how to avoid opening so many unclosed sockets (some kind of
>> attack?),
>
> It is not an attack. Most likely it is nothing more than some path in the
> code that allows a socket to become unreferenced in the image without having
> closed the socket first.
>
>> third: how to raise the 1024 limit?
>
> It is best not to do that. If you are "leaking" sockets, it will eventually
> fail no matter what the limit is. But if you do want to control it, see the
> man page for bash and look for the ulimit command.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
--
Janko Mivšek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel: 01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565
