incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:04:56 GMT
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?

> 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

Mime
View raw message