Charles,
Thanks - yes we are seeing corruption also. When we don't lock the file
and restart the server it doesn't help - its still at high CPU. When we
do lock the file it is OK on restart. This is why we contenplated
locking the file but the cpu utilization still goes sky high even with
the file locked (as you suggest it is likely to do) so this was no help.
We do have a call into tech support incident # 1508643, but we have
never gotten any answers back. This has been open for quite awhile. They
should have copies of the before and after brower.wddx files. If not, we
can send them to you again. The brower.wddx file is only 12.9 K.
I am sending you by direct email the before and several after
browser.wddx files.
Lanny Udey
Hofstra University
>>> Charles Teague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friday, July 07, 2000 >>>
I think it would be bad idea to do that- if it errors writing to the
browser
file is swallows and keeps chugging. This means, however, that there
is
potential that it would have to try to write each request. If you
aren't
seeing corruption in the file itself, then I think keeping it writable
is
ok. If there is corruption, we should get to the bottom of that!
-c
-----Original Message-----
From: Lanny R. Udey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Completely broken webtop
Charles,
I will get this info for you. Is it a BAD idea to make the file read
only as some on this list have suggested. Does this exacerbate the
problem since it might keep trying to update?
Thanks
Lanny Udey
Hofstra University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Charles Teague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thursday, July 06, 2000 >>>
Ok, here's a question- how big is the file itself? When a browser
hits
the
site, there is a struct by user agent that it uses to locate the
browser.
Assuming its not found, it attempts to do parenting to assign itself
to
the
correct browser parent. Perhaps it is running through a massive
number
of
potential parents? If so, it maybe that we have to do something like
limit
the depth of searching or something to make sure it doesn't recurse
through
the whole tree. . .
-c
-----Original Message-----
From: Lanny R. Udey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Completely broken webtop
Charles,
We are having MAJOR problems with the 1.01 version and we have been
working with tech support but have not really gotten anywhere. We
today
locked the file and tried to access it with Netscape 4.5 for Win 95
(at
least one of the browsers that are giving reproducable problems) and
the
following happened. The file was not corrupted obviously, but the CPU
utilization went through the roof as before. When we restarted the
server, since the browser.wddx file was OK things returned to normal.
This is a go live show stopper for us and we really need to get this
resolved ASAP.
Thanks for looking into this personally.
Lanny Udey
Hofstra University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Charles Teague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wednesday, July 05, 2000 >>>
(Sorry I'm replying late- I've been on holiday) A question for you-
the
cfa_browser tag in 10 definitely had exactly the behavior you
describe.
It
was fixed for 101- unrecognized browsers should be handled fine (it
was
posted on the forums by a gracious developer, though I can't recall
who).
Was this 10 or 101?
-c
-----Original Message-----
From: Tristan Roddis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 5:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Completely broken webtop
Not surprising that a whole server-side application can break so
fundamentally simply by being sent http requests by a browser? It
astounds
me! (not to mention irritates, annoys, angers, depresses...)
-T.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 9:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Completely broken webtop
>
>
> Being that NN6 is in Beta that's not surprising!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
