On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:50 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 4 June 2016 at 17:33, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> But as we found out, the performance of the proxy is inadequate for >> use with Whimsy. > > I'm not convinced that it was the proxy's fault. I'm more inclined to > blame the subnetwork on which whimsy-vm2 was placed. That subnetwork > hosts machines that use high internal bandwidth doing things like > backups. Presumably the backup commands deal with things like > transient network errors, but higher level applications (e.g., svn, > ldap, httpd) don't appear to do so quite as well. > > What that meant is that we would see dropped packets, which would > manifest itself as things like timeouts and errors reported by the > proxy server. > > I'm hopeful that the new server won't see any of these problems, at > least not with the frequency that we have been seeing those issues. > > Time will tell.
So far, I've only seen svn errors. Note that the svn servers are located on the same network that whimsy-vm2 is. No LDAP errors. Obviously no proxy errors (as there is no proxy), but more than that: no Apache httpd errors beyond application errors (such as the regression in the roster tool that I recently fixed). - Sam Ruby
