> >> Interesting observation. The code for waiting for valid port file values
> >> basically looks like
> >>
> >> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> >> checkPortFile();
> >> if (successful)
> >> break;
> >> sleep(500);
> >> }
> >>
> >> so the fact that it even reaches 6676 ms looks suspicious when it comes to
> >> load.
> >
> >
> > Why? Under load those sleep(500)'s might not return for much longer; and the
> > whole things might be time preempted at any point for an extended period of
> > time.
What I meant was that the fact that the code takes 6676 ms to complete
increases my suspicion about it being due to a load issue.
> What about putting another loop around this loop which prints a
> warning to stdout (e.g. "..trying to connect to sjavac server since X
> seconds") for another five or so times. We could also print the system
> load [1] although I'm not sure it's worth it. On our AIX machines it
> is often a network/NFS problem which causes long startup times of new
> executables and this won't be observable by looking at the system load
> (but it may at least give a hint').
>
> [1]
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/management/OperatingSystemMXBean.html#getSystemLoadAverage%28%29
I don't think a loop around the loop is necessary. The actual code (which is
slightly different from the snippet I posted above) already prints a message
between each attempt.
I was thinking of just bumping the timeout from 5 seconds to, say, 60 seconds.
If it's a load issue, we should se something like "Port file values found after
9000 ms", in which case we know for sure that it was a premature timeout issue.
If no port files materialize after >60 seconds, we can probably safely assume
that the issue is due to something else.
-- Andreas
