Tres Seaver wrote:
> That isn't the full traceback: we can't see see the error itself.
The error is: ValueError: corrupted record, version. Also in the subject
above :-)
regards,
Izak
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> You mind adding a few words why it's not possible?
It uses a wildly different approach. I'm not interested in spending
time any time soon to investigate or elaborate further.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
___
Hello Jim,
You mind adding a few words why it's not possible?
Sunday, November 1, 2009, 4:23:56 PM, you wrote:
JF> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Have you seen Malthe's latest package that tries to implement a
>> persistency with copy on write?
>>
>> ( http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Izak Burger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On one of our relatively highly loaded zope instances we occasionally
> get this problem. It runs fine for several days and then all of a sudden
> it breaks with this traceback:
>
> * Module Products.ZCatalog.C
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
Yes.
>>>
>>> Erk. Is there a subset I can look to run when looking to patch the
>>> ZEOStorage308Adapter?
>>
>> Feel my windows pain.
>
Izak Burger wrote:
> A restart "fixes" the problem. Its running version 3.7.1 of ZEO/ZODB.
I have a feeling some problems in this area were fixed recently.
Can you try ZODB 3.8 or 3.9?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://w
Hi all,
On one of our relatively highly loaded zope instances we occasionally
get this problem. It runs fine for several days and then all of a sudden
it breaks with this traceback:
* Module Products.ZCatalog.CatalogBrains, line 86, in getObject
* Module ZODB.Connection, line 761, in
On 11/02/2009 12:59 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
Yes.
>>> Erk. Is there a subset I can look to run when looking to patch the
>>> ZEOStorage308Adapter?
>>
>> Feel my windows pain.
>
> Do the tests take mu
Jim Fulton wrote:
Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
>>> Yes.
>> Erk. Is there a subset I can look to run when looking to patch the
>> ZEOStorage308Adapter?
>
> Feel my windows pain.
Do the tests take much less time to run on Linux?
If so, any idea as to why?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Erk. Is there a subset I can look to run when looking to patch the
> ZEOStorage308Adapter?
No.
Feel my windows pain.
>>> However, t
Jim Fulton wrote:
> I'm fine with change the storage server to pass the history size
> argument as a keyword parameter.
Okay, but where is the Z309 equivalent of ZEOStorage308Adapter's history
method?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
I'm fine with change the storage server to pass the history size
argument as a keyword parameter.
Jim
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> Would anyone object if I wrote a test and fixed this on the 3.9 branch
>>> of ZODB? I'm not really sure what to
Jim Fulton wrote:
>> Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
>
> Yes.
Erk. Is there a subset I can look to run when looking to patch the
ZEOStorage308Adapter?
>> However, there were
>> some error-ish messages interspersed in the test output. Is this to be
>> expected
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
Yes.
>
> Total: 3825 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors in 56 minutes 49.469 seconds.
>
> As you can see, no errors or failures were reported.
Cool.
> However, there
Hi All,
Should I really expect the tests to take an hour to run on Windows?
Total: 3825 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors in 56 minutes 49.469 seconds.
As you can see, no errors or failures were reported. However, there were
some error-ish messages interspersed in the test output. Is this to be
expe
Christian Theune wrote:
>> Would anyone object if I wrote a test and fixed this on the 3.9 branch
>> of ZODB? I'm not really sure what to do about the trunk...
>
> I think that's the best idea. It's not exactly part of the policy of
> supporting old protocols but if we want to support and encourag
On 11/02/2009 10:47 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
>> There's a size argument following the version which probably is not
>> being passed as a keyword argument so it looks like a slight API
>> incompatibility. I wonder whether ZEORaid should hack around that or
>> whether the ca
Christian Theune wrote:
> There's a size argument following the version which probably is not
> being passed as a keyword argument so it looks like a slight API
> incompatibility. I wonder whether ZEORaid should hack around that or
> whether the caller should be changed.
Hmm... looking more closel
On 11/02/2009 10:04 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm upgrading a Zope 2.9.8 project to Zope 2.12 + zeoraid.
>
> As I've done with previous projects, I run the .fs files through zodb
> 3.8.3's strip_versions script. For both the storages in this project,
> the script found no version r
Hi All,
I'm upgrading a Zope 2.9.8 project to Zope 2.12 + zeoraid.
As I've done with previous projects, I run the .fs files through zodb
3.8.3's strip_versions script. For both the storages in this project,
the script found no version records.
As a first step, I'm currently running the 2.9.8 a
20 matches
Mail list logo
