Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > > The "fossil server" command *should* be sufficient for this. However, > it doesn't get used that much. Most people run from a proper HTTP > server of some kind. Consequently, it is possible for bugs to linger > in "fossil server" without

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Running multiple copies of the new fossil-stress.tcl script > (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/tools/fossil-stress.tcl) from > a linux box against a windows laptop confirms that the "fossil server" > command on Windows sometimes latches

[fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
Dear, Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of let's say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? Or should a proper HTTP server be used as front end to SCGI mode of fossil? From some quick-n-dirty tests (yeah, on a Windows server, not the best of all ideas

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Olivier Mascia wrote: > > Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of > let's say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? > Or should a proper HTTP server be used as front end to SCGI mode of fossil? The "fossil server" command

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 15:04, Richard Hipp a écrit : > > On 12/28/17, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >> Running multiple copies of the new fossil-stress.tcl script >> (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/tools/fossil-stress.tcl) from >> a linux box against a windows

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 12:26, Olivier Mascia a écrit : > > Dear, > > Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of let's > say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? > Or should a proper HTTP server be used as front end to SCGI mode of fossil? > >

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 13:51, Richard Hipp a écrit : > > On 12/28/17, Olivier Mascia wrote: >> >> Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of >> let's say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? >> Or should a proper HTTP server

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 16:55, Olivier Mascia a écrit : > >> I'll experiment with the fossil code here. Familiarizing with winhttp.c for >> now. > > I haven't yet come to bottom of it, but using IP (IPv4) in the URL (instead > of name) changes it all!! There seem to be a high

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 17:18, Richard Hipp a écrit : > > There is one thread per connection in the parent process, which allows > the parent to manage multiple simultaneous incoming connections. As > each thread gets a complete HTTP request, it writes that request into > a

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Warren Young wrote: >> >> Even the Windows server starts a new process to handle each request. >> It just does so using system() rather than fork(). > > That leaves me wondering what the threads are used for then, if not to > implement a thread-per-connection

Re: [fossil-users] Replacing subversion revision number... by what?

2017-12-28 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:56:31PM +0100, Olivier Mascia wrote: > > Le 27 déc. 2017 à 23:24, Joerg Sonnenberger a écrit : > > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:10:21PM +, bch wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:06 PM Olivier Mascia wrote: > >> > >>> Hello, >

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Warren Young wrote: > > drh, I seem to recall messages about non-free()’d buffers in the Fossil > server code, where the patch was rejected with the argument that the forked > child is about to die anyway, so why bother freeing the buffer. That > doesn’t really

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 17:37, Olivier Mascia a écrit : > > The quick/easy/dirty/temporary fix before completing the proper support > (server-side) of IPv4+IPv6 would be to simply adjust the hint.ai_family > initialisation in http_socket.c::socket_open to read: > > #ifdef _WIN32

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Warren Young
On Dec 28, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 12/28/17, Warren Young wrote: >> >> drh, I seem to recall messages about non-free()’d buffers in the Fossil >> server code, where the patch was rejected with the argument that the forked >> child is

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Warren Young
On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 AM, Olivier Mascia wrote: > > *** time skew *** server is slow by 106.6 seconds …snip… > I'll have a close look in the next weeks at the source code of the Windows > server feature of Fossil. The warning "*** time skew *** will certainly be >

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Warren Young
On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Olivier Mascia wrote: > > Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of let's > say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? > Or should a proper HTTP server be used as front end to SCGI mode of fossil? That’s how I

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Warren Young
On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Olivier Mascia wrote: > > server on macOS, client on Windows (server 2016 and server 2012 R2) is OK. > Server and client on same Windows box, through localhost is comparable (just > slightly slower) to server macOS and client Windows. That’s not

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Olivier Mascia
> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 15:42, Olivier Mascia a écrit : > > I'll experiment with the fossil code here. Familiarizing with winhttp.c for > now. I haven't yet come to bottom of it, but using IP (IPv4) in the URL (instead of name) changes it all!! There seem to be a high price

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Warren Young
On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Olivier Mascia wrote: > >> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 15:42, Olivier Mascia a écrit : >> >> I'll experiment with the fossil code here. Familiarizing with winhttp.c for >> now. > > I haven't yet come to bottom of it, but using IP (IPv4)

Re: [fossil-users] HTML instead of fossil sync protocol

2017-12-28 Thread jungle Boogie
> > Any pointers are appreciated. > > I created a brand new repo with zero commits and I was able to clone it with fossil server running. So it looks like an issue with the repo itself, perhaps enabling fossil debug on the binary caused an issue? > > -- > --- > inum: 883510009027723 > sip:

Re: [fossil-users] HTML instead of fossil sync protocol

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, jungle Boogie wrote: > Hi All, > > I cannot clone a fossil repo running on a reaspberry pi. > --fossil-debug was originally used but since then, multiple fossil > binaries have been built with it disabled. Sounds to me like you are still running the older

Re: [fossil-users] HTML instead of fossil sync protocol

2017-12-28 Thread jungle Boogie
On 28 December 2017 at 12:02, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 12/28/17, jungle Boogie wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I cannot clone a fossil repo running on a reaspberry pi. >> --fossil-debug was originally used but since then, multiple fossil >> binaries have been

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said Warren Young on Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:20:21 -0700: > I'm pretty sure I've never seen Fossil crash in the years I've been > running it. I've had it dump core a few times but those were generally due to bugs that were quickly fixed. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40005a4540f3

[fossil-users] HTML instead of fossil sync protocol

2017-12-28 Thread jungle Boogie
Hi All, I cannot clone a fossil repo running on a reaspberry pi. --fossil-debug was originally used but since then, multiple fossil binaries have been built with it disabled. >fossil clone http://10.7.0.82:8080 cpp_projects.f Round-trips: 1 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 0 server replies with

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Thomas wrote: > > This could be an option too: > #ifndef IPV6_V6ONLY > #define IPV6_V6ONLY 27 > #endif It compiles with that. But it doesn't work. So for now, I think we'll just stick with IPv4-only servers for "fossil server" on windows - at least until

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Thomas
Oh, and this is not a Windows thingy. For Linux: #include #include http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/ipv6.7.html On 2017-12-29 02:23, Thomas wrote: On 2017-12-29 01:17, Richard Hipp wrote: On 12/28/17, Olivier Mascia wrote: To get a proper dual-stack socket, the

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Thomas
On 2017-12-29 01:17, Richard Hipp wrote: On 12/28/17, Olivier Mascia wrote: To get a proper dual-stack socket, the socket must be created with AF_INET6 first then setsockopt(s, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY,...) When I try to do this I get: error C2065: 'IPV6_V6ONLY':

Re: [fossil-users] fossil server on a small private LAN

2017-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 12/28/17, Olivier Mascia wrote: > To get a proper dual-stack socket, the socket must be created with AF_INET6 > first then setsockopt(s, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY,...) When I try to do this I get: error C2065: 'IPV6_V6ONLY': undeclared identifier MSVC 2015 -- D. Richard