On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >> > > >> >> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400: > >> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 > +0200: > >> >>>>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can > >> >>>>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the > >> >>>>> servers got in trouble? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ? > >> >> > >> >> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has > >> >> > >> >> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e > >> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c > >> >> > >> >> EU: > >> >> 232046 update30 > >> >> 35548 update34 > >> >> 76543 update35 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> US: > >> >> 198996 update30 > >> >> 33450 update34 > >> >> 71117 update35 > >> >> 0 update36 > >> > > >> > We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same > >> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32 > >> > > > > uh oh...this should have been setup before and Oliver said he requested > > this in the first post here. > > > > And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted? > > > > I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32? > > > > I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing > > problems, were they? > > > > The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know > what > > it's doing. > > > > When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was > > fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues? > > > > > > > >> > >> > ./update/aoo341/check.Update > >> > ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > >> > ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > >> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > >> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update > >> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > >> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update > >> > ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > >> > ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > >> > > >> > It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30. > >> > > >> > >> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July? We've > >> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them. They should not > >> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site. > >> > >> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by > >> the errors in update30? > >> > > > > Rob...update 30 is completely out of the question, and we simply can not > > do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it. > > > > What is the issue with update 30? The fact that it does a POST? I > don't that would rule it out altogether. But we would need to treat > it specially. For example, we could redirect to an isolated server, > at Apache or outside, that is able/willing to handle it. If we run it > for a month or two we should get the bulk of the upgrades. > > Or was there some other issue? > The Apache web server, of which AOO is a part, does not allow POSTs so when I had infra enable this and redirect the old update30 to the web server, it caused MANY errors in a very short period of time (about an hour) and Joe reverted it rather quickly. THis was like back in early March or something when I was playing around. The update feed itself didn't even DO anything but redirect them to a URL (in theory) it was the POST in the code for OOo 3.0 that caused all the havoc. When I inquired about this on this list, I was told yes, this WAS the case for 3.0 but had been fixed with, I thought 3.2. Anyway, as far as I know, this is the only issue. I was pretty wary initially about running the feed through the web server but was told we should be fine (this after Joe reverted the update30 in March) -- and I think we have been for the most part. But, yes, we need another box with a web server that would accept POSTs to deal with this -- 3.0, and it looks like 3.1. > > There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used, > and > > is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one so we > > won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages > of > > testing. > > > > Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I > mean > > the whole directory. > > > > > >> -Rob > >> > >> > Regards, > >> > Dave > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > MzK > > > > "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think." > > > -- > > Niels Bohr > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think." -- Niels Bohr
