Subject:
|
Re: Uh Oh... (was Traffic Error )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Apr 1999 05:55:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
816 times
|
| |
|
|
I want you to know Todd that I myself did not post the message to which I'm
replying. I was just checking this group and saw it there, but didn't remember
writing it. So I checked it, and it's the exact same post as the post from
before from me (I didn't notice the post #)
10:53pm PDT 4/16/1999
-Tom McD.
In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, galliard@shades-of-night.com (James Brown) writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> > > > In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> > > > > Today about 2:25 pm PDT I noticed things had gone "All Quiet" on the
> > > > > traffic page. But about 10 minutes later, I reloaded the page and it
> > > > > gave me at least 7 starwars messages as well a smattering of messages
> > > > > (all less than 7) from few other groups as being posted within the
> > > > > last hour. I checked to see if they were new, even though their red
> > > > > numbers were not blazingly red, and noted that I had read them before.
> > > >
> > > > Immediately after posting this, I refreshed the traffic page again, and
> > > > it seemed that the same groups were there with fewer messages posted
> > > > within the hour - about what I expected.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it accidentally burped out an "All Quiet" earlier. Also, I forgot • to
> > > > mention that when I refreshed a couple of times earlier (to see if indeed
> > > > things were quiet) I got the same "AQ" response each time. Just thought • you
> > > > should know.
> > >
> > > And it's not just Tom. :)
> > > I noticed that too, and was wandering over here to ask about it.
> >
> > Thanks to both of you for reporting & documenting this.
> >
> > Let's see what we can find out. 2:25pm PDT today equals 5:25pm EDT, equals
> > 924297900 seconds past the epoch, so what's in the activity log snapshots at
> > that time...? Hmm, nothing odd there, but let's look backward in time a
> > bit...
> >
> > 924290100
> > 924290400
> > 924290700
> > 924291000
> > 924291300
> > 924291600
> > 924291900
> > 924292200 :
> > 924292500 :
> > 924292800 1:00
> > 924293100 :
> > 924294000 :
> > 924294300 :
> > 924294600 :30
> > 924294900 :
> > 924295200 :
> > 924295500 :45
> > 924295800 :
> > 924296100 :
> > 924296400 2:00
> > 924296700 :
> > 924297000 :
> > 924297300 :15
> > 924297600 :
> > 924297900 <--- 2:25pm PDT <--- anomaly observed here
> > 924298200 :
> > 924298500 :
> > 924298800
> > 924299100
> > 924299400
> > 924299700
> >
> > HEY -- look at that! The log entries for 924293400 and 924293700 are
> > missing. And these correspond to 1:10pm EDT and 1:15pm EDT, which would
> > completely explain the confusion if you loaded the page anytime between
> > 2:20pm and 2:19pm (how close to 2:25pm did you see the problem?)
>
> I'm not certain, as I was kinda busy doing that radio thing.
>
>
> > Let me check my mailbox. Hey, guess what? Cron (the program that launches
> > the logger every 5 minutes) sent mail saying there was a problem at 5:10pm
> > EST and again at 5:15pm EST. It's not saying what happened (because I
> > didn't ask it to log these particular details), but I can guess what's going
> > on.
> >
> > I have a semaphore in the logging code which prevents multiple simultaneous
> > invocations of cron-spawned jobs. This is super-important for things like
> > sending out periodic digests and stuff like that -- you don't want to start
> > up a new process to service a pending request until the previous one is
> > complete. In theory, the logging code, which takes snapshots of the news
> > article counts every 5 minutes, should be able to do its work in 1/10 second
> > and be all done with it. In this case, however, it took more than 10
> > minutes. Why? Because the snapshot logger is still running an old broken
> > low-level DB library that gets very bloated (large and slow) after zillions
> > of additions and deletions. It's 75MB right now when it should only be
> > 8MB. Until I cut this particular script over to the new & better DB code,
> > I have to rebuild its data file every couple of months. I just did that
> > now, but this is only a band-aid. The reason I haven't cut over this module
> > to the new DB library is because it operates on relatively "live" data
> > (updated every 5 minutes) so the best time to mess with it would be in the
> > middle of the night, when I'm usually either sleeping or banging out brand-
> > new code. (I also wasn't 100% convinced until now that the problem was
> > really as bad as it is (was).)
> >
> > So the problem -could- recur in another month or so. I'll post here again
> > hopefully before then when I've cut over to the newer & far safer DB
> > routines. (Whew!)
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Umm... okay. (feeling a bit stupider than usual) <:^,
>
> I'll just mess with this 10-piece Winnie-the-Pooh puzzle until you work it • out.
>
>
> Y'know Todd, I'm surprised that with all your patience and willingness to
> familiarize yourself with intricacies far beyond the understanding of mortal
> men that you're not an absolute Technic and Mindstorms freak :)
>
> -Tom McD.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Traffic Error
|
| (...) you (...) I'm not certain, as I was kinda busy doing that radio thing. (...) Umm... okay. (feeling a bit stupider than usual) <:^, I'll just mess with this 10-piece Winnie-the-Pooh puzzle until you work it out. Y'know Todd, I'm surprised that (...) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
