incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:31:48 GMT
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
> >> 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 <
> d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
> >> 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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message