On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nicolas Sylvainnsylv...@chromium.org wrote:
The underlying problem with buildbot is the database format, which is just
hundred of
thousand of files on the harddrive, with no seek capability, and the fact
that the
webserver itself is single threaded.
We
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nicolas Sylvain nsylv...@chromium.orgwrote:
Q3: What kind of auto-refresh do we need?
We used to be at 60 secs for a long time, and I changed it a couple of
weeks ago to 90 secs.
No one complained, so I guess this is good. Should we go even higher than
I was just thinking... doesn't it have a reverse proxy in front of it?
It could also force content cache time of 60s or even more...
Something like Squid or Varnish.
Oh, and today morning was probably me scraping the logs. :-( Sorry.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 14:18, Nicolas
If I understand right, simply serving the auto-refresh requests is
substantial? At least for the main page, a reverse in accelerator
mode could turn that into a constant load.
[I'd offer to help, but I don't know what kind of technology we're
talking about, here.]
-scott
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nicolas Sylvainnsylv...@chromium.org
wrote:
The underlying problem with buildbot is the database format, which is
just
hundred of
thousand of files on the harddrive, with no seek
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Nicolas Sylvain nsylv...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nicolas Sylvainnsylv...@chromium.org
wrote:
The underlying problem with buildbot is the database format,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Nicolas Sylvainnsylv...@chromium.org wrote:
- Get a better machine. It's already running on a dedicated dual quad
core
nehalem server
with 24gb of RAM and 15k rpm drives.
This is absurdly powerful! It should have all the data necessary to
generate
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Albert J. Wong
(王重傑)ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
That is pretty nuts. Is it calling fsync or something crazy? Since you
said strace, I'm assmuming linux. In that case, the buffer cache should be
saving you from disk accesses for most everything.
Of course,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Nicolas Sylvain nsylv...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nicolas Sylvainnsylv...@chromium.org
wrote:
It seems to me a caching layer that only ever hit the backend every
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Adam Langley a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Albert J. Wong
(王重傑)ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
That is pretty nuts. Is it calling fsync or something crazy? Since you
said strace, I'm assmuming linux. In that case, the buffer cache
I would like to see auto refresh turned off by default. That might help the
load.
-- Mohamed Mansour
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
Turning off auto refresh by default sounds reasonable idea right now...
with an option to enable it if really
11 matches
Mail list logo
