--On Sunday, March 7, 2004 6:28 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
'k, then this is probably why I can't recreate it, since the
ads.postgresql.org stuff itself keeps the hits pretty continous ...
Yup. FWIW, I just tested against -STABLE as of Mar 11th (Brian just upgraded
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 18:50, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Actually, I think it might have been fixed ... On my Jan 6th FreeBSD
server, I am getting weird responses with threading enabled, but two of my
others ones (Jan 23rd nd Feb 4th) both seem to be working consistently ...
On my 4.9-STABLE
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Paul Querna wrote:
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 18:50, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Actually, I think it might have been fixed ... On my Jan 6th FreeBSD
server, I am getting weird responses with threading enabled, but two of my
others ones (Jan 23rd nd Feb 4th) both seem to be
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 13:50, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Now, from the way that Justin explains it, its possible that the hits are
continous enough not to exhibit the problem?
How are you testing this?
I can do it with just a simple telnet or with Firefox.
I don't understand how you can even 'pass'
--On Sunday, March 7, 2004 4:50 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now, from the way that Justin explains it, its possible that the hits are
continous enough not to exhibit the problem?
Correct. As long as there is traffic on the server, it'll appear to function.
However, the
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Paul Querna wrote:
How are you testing this?
By using it ... I have ads.postgresql.org pointing at both servers ...
they are hte banner ads running on http://www.postgresql.org ... on my
one server (older version of 4.9-STABLE, the whole process does lock up
after a bit),
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, March 7, 2004 4:50 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now, from the way that Justin explains it, its possible that the hits are
continous enough not to exhibit the problem?
Correct. As long as there is traffic on
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I also know that I checked this a few months ago on minotaur (ASF's CVS
server), which is running 4.9-STABLE (from Nov 29 2003). So, if it got
fixed, it's probably after that as it was still broken then.
Actually, I think it might have been fixed
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
What we believed was that it was related to race conditions inside the
OS scheduler handler where our poll calls got mixed up with the
scheduler's polls. We had it tracked down to some gnarly stuff inside
the libc_r scheduler and gave up...
Note
--On Tuesday, March 2, 2004 11:47 AM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that *BSD is looking at a 4.10 RSN, and I'm trying to fight for
trying to get this fixed, if its possible, which is why I'm trying to come
up with some data to fight with ...
Is there anywhere that there is
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, February 29, 2004 4:06 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
k, if I'm understanding what you are saying, how do you test something
like that in a way that you can debug it? What I'm reading is that if I
sent two
--On Monday, March 1, 2004 11:37 AM -0400 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so I've effectively 'pounded' the server, followed by a telnet session to
the same server doing a 'GET /' and it returned right away:
See below, I think you only have one worker process running. You need
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 23:59, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Note that this is fixed on FreeBSD 5.2+ with either libkse or libthr. libc_r,
the default in 5.2, still doesn't work - you have to use libmap.conf, etc.
btw, libkse is now the default for -CURRENT, which means for the 5.3
Release end
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:05 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone mentioned to me once that there is an easy/consistent way to
trigger the thread bug where you have 2+ workers in operation ...
Can someone
--On Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:29 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'k, how do you manage 'simultaneously? I tried using http_load with -rate
set to 10, and couldn't lock it up, and its supposed to start up 10
connections per sec, if I read the docs right ...
You probably
yOn Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:29 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'k, how do you manage 'simultaneously? I tried using http_load with -rate
set to 10, and couldn't lock it up, and its supposed to start up 10
--On Sunday, February 29, 2004 4:06 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
k, if I'm understanding what you are saying, how do you test something
like that in a way that you can debug it? What I'm reading is that if I
sent two queries (GET / and, say, GET /subdir), there is a chance
--On Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:05 PM -0400 Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone mentioned to me once that there is an easy/consistent way to
trigger the thread bug where you have 2+ workers in operation ...
Can someone send me a how to on this?
Just issue two GET requests
18 matches
Mail list logo
