Re: [Zope-dev] Bad Marshal Data
On 27 Mar 2002 16:25:27 -0300, Leonardo Rochael Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 08:19, seb bacon wrote: >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "/usr/local/Zope-2.5.1b1-src/lib/python/OFS/Application.py", line >> 531, in import_product >> product=__import__(pname, global_dict, global_dict, silly) >> ValueError: bad marshal data >> Deleting >> *pyc files does not help. That traceback definitely hints at a pyc-related problem. Are you deleting *.pyo files too ? Ive also seen a similar traceback on importing a product which stored some big data structure marshalled in a string literal, and unmarshalled it when imported. I cant remember which product it was, and I think the traceback would different, but it might be worth grepping for 'marshal' in the source of all your products. >The problem you're talking about sounds a lot like the ZODB reference to >a ceirtan product got corrupted somehow, and forcing the reload of this >product (by changing it's syntax slightly) makes the problem go away. Im sure thats not the case because ZODB doesnt use marshal. Only pickle. Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] OpenSSH configuration between ZEO clients & storage server
At 12:01 PM 3/27/02, Itamar Shtull-Trauring wrote: >Shane Hathaway wrote: > >>But you don't need reliability compensation to multiplex. SSH assumes >>the transport layer is reliable. So an SSH tunnel and an SSL tunnel are >>virtually synonymous. > >They're not really, but yeah, I was wrong :) > >A SSL forwarder takes a packet, and then sends over another TCP connection >that happens to be encrypted. It's basically a TCP port forwarder. >Multiple client connections through the local SSL forwarder (e.g. stunnel) >will run over *multiple* outgoing streams: > >client --> stunnel on localhost ---> stunnel on www.foo.com > server >on www.foo.com > >SSH OTOH uses a multiplexing protocol, where multiple streams of data run >over the same connection, and each have their own flow control. Multiple >client connections over a SSH port forwarder will run over the same >*single* stream. > >A third thing is TCP over TCP, i.e. PPP over SSH or SSL, which functions >as a full network connection. > >>The Python standard library has good support for an SSL client but not >>for an SSL server. > >pyOpenSSL is good for both servers and clients. Could be better, but it's easy >to start using it, especially for select() based servers (its thread-safety >is iffy). Twisted's SSL stuff uses it, and latest version of pyOpenSSL may >have asyncore example. > Yes. The best solution would be for the ZEO protocol to support auth and crypto natively... The next best solution (while you wait) is to use CIPE ;-) As far as I understand it, even regular TCP port forwarding is TCP over TCP and suffers from the unreliable carrier assumption causing excess (eg retransmit) traffic over a reliable channel. Consider: host <--TCP--> local interface <--TCP tunnel--> local interface <--TCP--> host host <--TCP--> virtual loopback interface <--TCP--> host In this common port forwarding scenario, the SSH or SSL tunnel creates a virtual single loopback interface that the two hosts use to talk to each other, using TCP. The transport that joins these two physical interfaces to create one virtual loopback interface is also TCP. Therefore it's TCP over TCP How much pain this will cause you in the real world really depends on your bandwidth and packet loss rates. If anyone is aware of any special handling that ssh or stunnel does to prevent or reduce duplicate TCP flow control / adaptive retransmission / congestion control, please let me know. Adam ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] [Zope Crash Solution] Positive Report
Hi Zopers! Thanks all for your time, especially to Matthew and Leonardo. My patched Python/Zope systems run well now in multi-threads mode. I tested with very hard Python Scripts too and my report is at all positive. My relief is great, like many others zopers, I think ; ) Thanks again and Happy Easter! Stefano -- Stefano Noferi n o z e S.r.l. Soluzioni Open-Source Via Caduti del Lavoro, 32 56122 Pisa (PI) - Italy Tel: +39 (0)50 533320 Fax: +39 (0)50 526604 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.noze.it -- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope Crash Solution] Positive Report
Stefano Noferi wrote: >Hi Zopers! > >Thanks all for your time, especially to Matthew and Leonardo. >My patched Python/Zope systems run well now in multi-threads mode. >I tested with very hard Python Scripts too and my report is at all positive. > >My relief is great, like many others zopers, I think ; ) > >Thanks again and Happy Easter! > >Stefano > FYI, Pythonlabs thinks there is more than one bug involved. The relevant report at sourceforge is: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=535905&group_id=5470 -- Matt Kromer Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] OpenSSH configuration between ZEO clients & storage server
Adam Manock wrote: > Yes. The best solution would be for the ZEO protocol to support auth and > crypto natively... > The next best solution (while you wait) is to use CIPE ;-) > > As far as I understand it, even regular TCP port forwarding is TCP over > TCP and suffers from the unreliable carrier assumption causing excess > (eg retransmit) traffic over a reliable channel. Out of interest, could you elaborate that? I assume you mean port forwarding (without the TCP), which, AFAIK, just is a rewriting of some IP/UDP header information and some, uhm, forwarding. I am not aware of any encapsulation taking place. I quite sure that this isn't the case, because, after all, we can talk to a "normal" tcp/udp server on the ipaddress:port which we forward to. We can also port forward udp-traffic. SSL then adds another layer between transport and application, but it explicitly needs a reliable transport protocol underneath (e.g. TCP). > > Consider: > host <--TCP--> local interface <--TCP tunnel--> local interface > <--TCP--> host > host <--TCP--> virtual loopback interface > <--TCP--> host > > In this common port forwarding scenario, the SSH or SSL tunnel creates a > virtual single loopback interface that > the two hosts use to talk to each other, using TCP. The transport that > joins these two physical interfaces to create one virtual loopback > interface is also TCP. Therefore it's TCP over TCP No, it isn't. You can use something like stunnel to https-"enable" non-https capable http-clients, stunnel -c -d 80 -r ssl-server:443 now go to http://localhost Try it, it's fun ;-). cheers, oliver ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
