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

[Ken Causey]

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 -
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> >