simpleweb-support Mailing List for Simple (Page 28)
Brought to you by:
niallg
Menu
▾
▴
simpleweb-support — General user and support issues
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(14) |
May
(22) |
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(9) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(12) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(16) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
|
May
(12) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(22) |
Aug
(50) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(23) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(50) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
(21) |
May
(9) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(29) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(14) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(13) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(61) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(10) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
|
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
(17) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(10) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
|
Apr
(12) |
May
|
Jun
(5) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(20) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2016 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Jan M. <ja...@ja...> - 2005-08-26 16:11:07
|
Ok, mine is even newer it seems: Linux cbs2.jatak.com 2.4.21-32.0.1.ELsmp #1 SMP Tue May 17 17:52:23 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux I'll update Simple from 2.6 to the coming version and see what happens. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 26. august 2005 17:59 To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... All, My Linux server is: Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 3 (Taroon Update 5) 2.4.21-9.0.1.EL=20 - Gail. =20 -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Jan Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:50 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Gail,=20 please run 'cat /etc/redhat-release' and 'uname -a' Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 26. august 2005 16:40 To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Jan, The quick answer is I'm not sure. I'm not a Linux expert, so I paid Red Hat for a subscription that automatically updates the OS. I started with Enterprise Linux 3 ES. After 2 hours of Red Hat's automatic updates, I ran Simple again and the CLOSE_WAIT problem was gone. I have been running a stable Simple ever since. I believe the kernel is still 2.4.x. But if you give me a shell command that displays the kernel version, I'm happy to run it and provide you exact version. =20 - Gail. =20 ---------------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 =20 Screaming Geek Software www.screaminggeek.com =20 -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Jan Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:36 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Gail Did you update to a newer version of 2.4.x or to 2.6.x ? Is there any way to check if my 2.4.x kernel has this bug ? Thanks, Jan -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 9. august 2005 02:26 To: sim...@li... Subject: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Niall and everyone, As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past few weeks, trying to track down a TCP error that was causing my instance to eventually hang all worker threads, even under light loads. I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket configuration (setting a SO_LINGER timeout).=20 In the end, we found spotty documentation about a Linux 2.4.x kernel bug that can cause sockets closed properly by the application to linger indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat distribution via Red Hat Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the problem completely going away.=20 I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at fault! Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization and thread-pooling code with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and wonderful package java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software was correct (because we saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, which have already been proven correct). But, the migration to java.util.concurrent seems to make a faster Simple. I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it simplifies the code... -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Gail R. F. <ga...@sc...> - 2005-08-26 15:59:02
|
All, My Linux server is: Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 3 (Taroon Update 5) 2.4.21-9.0.1.EL - Gail. -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Jan Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:50 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Gail, please run 'cat /etc/redhat-release' and 'uname -a' Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 26. august 2005 16:40 To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Jan, The quick answer is I'm not sure. I'm not a Linux expert, so I paid Red Hat for a subscription that automatically updates the OS. I started with Enterprise Linux 3 ES. After 2 hours of Red Hat's automatic updates, I ran Simple again and the CLOSE_WAIT problem was gone. I have been running a stable Simple ever since. I believe the kernel is still 2.4.x. But if you give me a shell command that displays the kernel version, I'm happy to run it and provide you exact version. - Gail. ---------------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 Screaming Geek Software www.screaminggeek.com -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Jan Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:36 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Gail Did you update to a newer version of 2.4.x or to 2.6.x ? Is there any way to check if my 2.4.x kernel has this bug ? Thanks, Jan -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 9. august 2005 02:26 To: sim...@li... Subject: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Niall and everyone, As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past few weeks, trying to track down a TCP error that was causing my instance to eventually hang all worker threads, even under light loads. I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket configuration (setting a SO_LINGER timeout). In the end, we found spotty documentation about a Linux 2.4.x kernel bug that can cause sockets closed properly by the application to linger indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat distribution via Red Hat Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the problem completely going away. I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at fault! Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization and thread-pooling code with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and wonderful package java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software was correct (because we saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, which have already been proven correct). But, the migration to java.util.concurrent seems to make a faster Simple. I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it simplifies the code... -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Jan M. <ja...@ja...> - 2005-08-26 14:52:30
|
Gail,=20 please run 'cat /etc/redhat-release' and 'uname -a' Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 26. august 2005 16:40 To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Jan, The quick answer is I'm not sure. I'm not a Linux expert, so I paid Red Hat for a subscription that automatically updates the OS. I started with Enterprise Linux 3 ES. After 2 hours of Red Hat's automatic updates, I ran Simple again and the CLOSE_WAIT problem was gone. I have been running a stable Simple ever since. I believe the kernel is still 2.4.x. But if you give me a shell command that displays the kernel version, I'm happy to run it and provide you exact version. =20 - Gail. =20 ---------------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 =20 Screaming Geek Software www.screaminggeek.com =20 -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Jan Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:36 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Gail Did you update to a newer version of 2.4.x or to 2.6.x ? Is there any way to check if my 2.4.x kernel has this bug ? Thanks, Jan -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 9. august 2005 02:26 To: sim...@li... Subject: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Niall and everyone, As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past few weeks, trying to track down a TCP error that was causing my instance to eventually hang all worker threads, even under light loads. I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket configuration (setting a SO_LINGER timeout).=20 In the end, we found spotty documentation about a Linux 2.4.x kernel bug that can cause sockets closed properly by the application to linger indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat distribution via Red Hat Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the problem completely going away.=20 I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at fault! Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization and thread-pooling code with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and wonderful package java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software was correct (because we saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, which have already been proven correct). But, the migration to java.util.concurrent seems to make a faster Simple. I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it simplifies the code... -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-26 14:50:07
|
Hi Gail uname -r Niall --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > The quick answer is I'm not sure. > > I'm not a Linux expert, so I paid Red Hat for a > subscription that > automatically updates the OS. I started with > Enterprise Linux 3 ES. After 2 > hours of Red Hat's automatic updates, I ran Simple > again and the CLOSE_WAIT > problem was gone. I have been running a stable > Simple ever since. > > I believe the kernel is still 2.4.x. But if you give > me a shell command that > displays the kernel version, I'm happy to run it and > provide you exact > version. > > > - Gail. > > ---------------------- > Gail Rahn Frederick > ga...@sc... > 503.260.0910 > > Screaming Geek Software > www.screaminggeek.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...] > On Behalf Of Jan > Mikkelsen > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:36 AM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > Hi Gail > > Did you update to a newer version of 2.4.x or to > 2.6.x ? > Is there any way to check if my 2.4.x kernel has > this bug ? > > Thanks, > Jan > > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...] > On Behalf Of Gail > Rahn Frederick > Sent: 9. august 2005 02:26 > To: sim...@li... > Subject: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > Hi Niall and everyone, > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past > few weeks, trying to > track down a TCP error that was causing my instance > to eventually hang all > worker threads, even under light loads. > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > configuration (setting a > SO_LINGER timeout). > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > application to linger > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > distribution via Red Hat > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > problem completely going > away. > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at > fault! > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > and thread-pooling code > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > wonderful package > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software > was correct (because we > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > which have already been > proven correct). But, the migration to > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > faster Simple. > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > java.util.concurrent, it simplifies > the code... > > -- Gail. > > ------------- > Gail Rahn Frederick > ga...@sc... > 503.260.0910 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > * Testing & QA Security > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > * Testing & QA Security > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Gail R. F. <ga...@sc...> - 2005-08-26 14:40:09
|
Hi Jan, The quick answer is I'm not sure. I'm not a Linux expert, so I paid Red Hat for a subscription that automatically updates the OS. I started with Enterprise Linux 3 ES. After 2 hours of Red Hat's automatic updates, I ran Simple again and the CLOSE_WAIT problem was gone. I have been running a stable Simple ever since. I believe the kernel is still 2.4.x. But if you give me a shell command that displays the kernel version, I'm happy to run it and provide you exact version. - Gail. ---------------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 Screaming Geek Software www.screaminggeek.com -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Jan Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:36 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Gail Did you update to a newer version of 2.4.x or to 2.6.x ? Is there any way to check if my 2.4.x kernel has this bug ? Thanks, Jan -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 9. august 2005 02:26 To: sim...@li... Subject: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Niall and everyone, As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past few weeks, trying to track down a TCP error that was causing my instance to eventually hang all worker threads, even under light loads. I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket configuration (setting a SO_LINGER timeout). In the end, we found spotty documentation about a Linux 2.4.x kernel bug that can cause sockets closed properly by the application to linger indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat distribution via Red Hat Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the problem completely going away. I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at fault! Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization and thread-pooling code with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and wonderful package java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software was correct (because we saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, which have already been proven correct). But, the migration to java.util.concurrent seems to make a faster Simple. I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it simplifies the code... -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Jan M. <ja...@ja...> - 2005-08-26 08:18:12
|
Thanks :) -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Niall Gallagher Sent: 26. august 2005 10:15 To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple stops responding - recap Hi Jan, Ill try to upload it today! Niall --- Jan Mikkelsen <ja...@ja...> wrote: > Hi Niall >=20 > When do you think the next release will be > available? >=20 > Thanks, > Jan >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...] > On Behalf Of > Niall Gallagher > Sent: 10. august 2005 12:22 > To: sim...@li... > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple stops > responding - recap >=20 > Hi Jan, >=20 > The next release of Simple should be very soon. > Right > now I have implemented everything I wanted to for > this > release, including a new configuration utility for > the > simple.util.connect package. >=20 > The simple.template package has been reworked and > extended quite signifigantly and I have made all the > nessecary updates to the simple.util.schedule and > simple.util.process packages.=20 >=20 > I am currently finishing an XML parser utility and > once that has finished there will be some testing > and > then a release. I think anytime within the next > couple > of days! >=20 > Niall >=20 > --- Jan Mikkelsen <jm...@ad...> wrote: >=20 > > Hi > >=20 > > We are using Simple on Red Hat and we also have a > > problem with Simple > > stopping to respond. I need to if we must do both: > > - Update the kernel as suggested by Gail? > > - Update Simple when a new version becomes > > available. BTW: when do you > > think that will happen, Niall? > >=20 > > Thanks, > >=20 > > Jan > >=20 > >=20 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Niall Gallagher >=20 >=20 > =09 > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20 > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & > QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support >=20 Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20 http://mail.yahoo.com=20 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-26 08:15:32
|
Hi Jan, Ill try to upload it today! Niall --- Jan Mikkelsen <ja...@ja...> wrote: > Hi Niall > > When do you think the next release will be > available? > > Thanks, > Jan > > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...] > On Behalf Of > Niall Gallagher > Sent: 10. august 2005 12:22 > To: sim...@li... > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple stops > responding - recap > > Hi Jan, > > The next release of Simple should be very soon. > Right > now I have implemented everything I wanted to for > this > release, including a new configuration utility for > the > simple.util.connect package. > > The simple.template package has been reworked and > extended quite signifigantly and I have made all the > nessecary updates to the simple.util.schedule and > simple.util.process packages. > > I am currently finishing an XML parser utility and > once that has finished there will be some testing > and > then a release. I think anytime within the next > couple > of days! > > Niall > > --- Jan Mikkelsen <jm...@ad...> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > We are using Simple on Red Hat and we also have a > > problem with Simple > > stopping to respond. I need to if we must do both: > > - Update the kernel as suggested by Gail? > > - Update Simple when a new version becomes > > available. BTW: when do you > > think that will happen, Niall? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jan > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & > QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Jan M. <ja...@ja...> - 2005-08-26 07:38:56
|
Hi Gail Did you update to a newer version of 2.4.x or to 2.6.x ? Is there any way to check if my 2.4.x kernel has this bug ? Thanks, Jan -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Gail Rahn Frederick Sent: 9. august 2005 02:26 To: sim...@li... Subject: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Niall and everyone, As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past few weeks, trying to track down a TCP error that was causing my instance to eventually hang all worker threads, even under light loads. I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket configuration (setting a SO_LINGER timeout).=20 In the end, we found spotty documentation about a Linux 2.4.x kernel bug that can cause sockets closed properly by the application to linger indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat distribution via Red Hat Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the problem completely going away.=20 I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at fault! Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization and thread-pooling code with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and wonderful package java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software was correct (because we saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, which have already been proven correct). But, the migration to java.util.concurrent seems to make a faster Simple. I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it simplifies the code... -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Jan M. <ja...@ja...> - 2005-08-26 07:15:09
|
Hi Niall When do you think the next release will be available? Thanks, Jan -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of Niall Gallagher Sent: 10. august 2005 12:22 To: sim...@li... Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple stops responding - recap Hi Jan, The next release of Simple should be very soon. Right now I have implemented everything I wanted to for this release, including a new configuration utility for the simple.util.connect package. The simple.template package has been reworked and extended quite signifigantly and I have made all the nessecary updates to the simple.util.schedule and simple.util.process packages.=20 I am currently finishing an XML parser utility and once that has finished there will be some testing and then a release. I think anytime within the next couple of days! Niall --- Jan Mikkelsen <jm...@ad...> wrote: > Hi >=20 > We are using Simple on Red Hat and we also have a > problem with Simple > stopping to respond. I need to if we must do both: > - Update the kernel as suggested by Gail? > - Update Simple when a new version becomes > available. BTW: when do you > think that will happen, Niall? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Jan >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support >=20 Niall Gallagher =09 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20 http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20 =20 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Gail R. F. <ga...@sc...> - 2005-08-16 01:00:03
|
Hi Niall, I finished just this clean-shutdown implementation in Simple today ... = I'll package up the changes and submit when I get a free moment. -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of = Niall Gallagher Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:36 PM To: sim...@li... Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Clean shutdown Hi Michael, This is something that I have tought about implementing. However, I have not had the time to develop such a feature as it would require changes to quite a few of the background processors. Also, because Simple is embeddable leaving threads or resources lingering in the background would not be desirable.=20 Hopefully I will be able to add this feature some time in the future. Niall --- "Michael \"Luni\" Libes" <lun...@ya...> wrote: > Niall, >=20 > There is no method for cleaning shutting down > Simple. I've > implemented a few hacks which probably work, but I'm > sure my > changes do not work in all situations. >=20 > I know in Java that it's not typical to cleanup, but > when > debugging the "hang" issue, one of my quick fixes > was add a > simple watchdog to my server and restart the HTTP > system (i.e. > Simple) when requests stopped arriving. >=20 > Luni >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf=20 > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support >=20 Niall Gallagher =09 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20 http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20 =20 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO = September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile = & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA = Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-15 20:35:57
|
Hi Michael, This is something that I have tought about implementing. However, I have not had the time to develop such a feature as it would require changes to quite a few of the background processors. Also, because Simple is embeddable leaving threads or resources lingering in the background would not be desirable. Hopefully I will be able to add this feature some time in the future. Niall --- "Michael \"Luni\" Libes" <lun...@ya...> wrote: > Niall, > > There is no method for cleaning shutting down > Simple. I've > implemented a few hacks which probably work, but I'm > sure my > changes do not work in all situations. > > I know in Java that it's not typical to cleanup, but > when > debugging the "hang" issue, one of my quick fixes > was add a > simple watchdog to my server and restart the HTTP > system (i.e. > Simple) when requests stopped arriving. > > Luni > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs |
|
From: Michael \Luni\ L. <lun...@ya...> - 2005-08-15 18:41:37
|
Niall, There is no method for cleaning shutting down Simple. I've implemented a few hacks which probably work, but I'm sure my changes do not work in all situations. I know in Java that it's not typical to cleanup, but when debugging the "hang" issue, one of my quick fixes was add a simple watchdog to my server and restart the HTTP system (i.e. Simple) when requests stopped arriving. Luni |
|
From: Michael \Luni\ L. <lun...@ya...> - 2005-08-10 21:40:25
|
Niall, Note that we're running Simple "behind" the Linux "squid" proxy, and that process always closes the incoming connection after a single GET/POST request. Thus our server never keeps a Pipeline lying around, and never sees the optimizations you made to best handle HTTP 1.1 persistent connections. Luni --- Niall Gallagher <gal...@ya...> wrote: > With regard to the simple.util.schedule pckage, it > seems that this is just a blocking PriorityQueue, > which will not account for wait times. This will > certainly seem faster to the users, as the delay > between requests will be 0 miliseconds each time. > > The current Scheduler implementation may seem a little > over the top! However it does a very important thing. > What the current implementation does is it allows the > server to work on an active set of pipelines. When > there is an extremely large number of clients > connected to the server there will obviously be just > as many pipelines to poll, if not more. However, not > all of these pipelines will contain requests. Instead > they may be open and connected for a future request > from the client, whom may not issue another request > for some time. So, to reduce the workload involved in > polling the Scheduler will have these queued for a > wait peroid, which results in a signifigantly reduced > number of pipelines to poll. Thus the server can spend > more time concentrating on acquiring requests from > pipelines that are producing them. To summarize, the > Scheduler will only be releasing the active pipelines, > an inactive pipeline will be polled only when its wait > peroid is over. > > This relates to the visible performance, if you > request a page, the initial request will seem instant. > If after 4 to 5 seconds you request another page > Simple seems to stall. This is intentional. Its not > that it is not performing well, its that the pipeline > is waiting as it has been inactive for 4 to 5 seconds, > typically the maximum wait is about 1000 ms. This may > seem usless, however I have found that when the server > is highly loaded the performance gains can be very > signifigant. Also, the server will keep these > connections open for much longer resulting in less > dropped requests. > > For lightly loaded servers the visible performance can > be improved using the PipelineHandlerFactory. This > will allow you to cap the maximum wait time. Simply > set the maximum wait to 200 ms and it will seem as if > the responses are instant. > > Thank you for your contribution, it will try to > introduce some of the changes soon. > > Sorry for the length! > > Niall > > > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > wrote: > > > Hi Niall, > > > > * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. > > Enjoy! > > > > * We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled > > it enough to give you > > numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, > > enough to be noticable by us > > humans. > > > > -- Gail. > > > > ------------- > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > ga...@sc... > > 503.260.0910 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sim...@li... > > > [mailto:sim...@li...] > > On Behalf Of Niall > > Gallagher > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM > > To: sim...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > > > > Hi Gail, > > > > I would really like to see your implementation using > > the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you > > can > > put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for > > Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=500356&group_id=62369&func=browse > > > > Also, how much faster is the implementation with the > > java.util.concurrent > > package. > > > > Niall > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Niall and everyone, > > > > > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the > > past > > > few weeks, trying to > > > track down a TCP error that was causing my > > instance > > > to eventually hang all > > > worker threads, even under light loads. > > > > > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > > > configuration (setting a > > > SO_LINGER timeout). > > > > > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > > > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > > > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > > > application to linger > > > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > > > distribution via Red Hat > > > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > > > problem completely going > > > away. > > > > > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be > > at > > > fault! > > > > > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > > > and thread-pooling code > > > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > > > wonderful package > > > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's > > software > > > was correct (because we > > > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > > > which have already been > > > proven correct). But, the migration to > > > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > > > faster Simple. > > > > > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > > java.util.concurrent, it > > > simplifies the code... > > > > > > -- Gail. > > > > > > ------------- > > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > > ga...@sc... > > > 503.260.0910 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > > Conference & EXPO > > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > > Projects > > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO September > > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > > * Testing & QA Security > > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection > around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & > EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * > Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-10 21:34:49
|
Hi Guys, I also have that requirement! However if it turns out that the java.util.concurrent is faster ill let ant handle a build like: ant build -Djava=1.5 or ant build -Djava=1.4 At any rate I have reworked a the concurrency issues such that the simple.util.lease.MessageQueue becomes simple.util.MessageQueue, this is now used instead of ObjectQueue in places where the ObjectQueue is not suitable, this will address the current problems. Also, am not a fan of coupling the implementation to an external library. Thanks, Niall --- Jorge CAMPOS <Jor...@ge...> wrote: > Great! > > Then, I support the change! :D > > Cheers > > Jorge > > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...]On > Behalf Of > Christophe Roudet > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:14 PM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > I have submitted on sourceforge a port of Gail's > work on java 1.4 using > http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/dcl/util/backport-util-concurrent/ > A very basic package/import renaming. > > Christophe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: > sim...@li... > [mailto:simpleweb- > > sup...@li...] On Behalf Of > Jorge CAMPOS > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:10 PM > > To: sim...@li... > > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple > Stability... > > > > Hi Niall! > > > > Regarding JDK 1.5 changes, I think it will be > better to implement them > > using > > > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro > > .h > > tml > > > > To remain compatible with older JDKs (at least for > us it is important to > > be > > backward compatible). > > > > Jorge > > -----Original Message----- > > From: > sim...@li... > > > [mailto:sim...@li...]On > Behalf Of Niall > > Gallagher > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:57 PM > > To: sim...@li... > > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple > Stability... > > > > > > Hi Gail, > > > > I have had a look at your changes to the project. > I > > particularly agree that the Request needs a > getPath > > method as it can be frustrating creating a > URIParser > > for the getURI method. Also, in general the 1.5 > > java.util.concurrent seems to clean up a lot of > code. > > > > I will have a further look at the code, and I will > try > > to introduce the changes in either the upcomming > > version or the one after. > > > > With regard to the simple.util.schedule pckage, it > > seems that this is just a blocking PriorityQueue, > > which will not account for wait times. This will > > certainly seem faster to the users, as the delay > > between requests will be 0 miliseconds each time. > > > > The current Scheduler implementation may seem a > little > > over the top! However it does a very important > thing. > > What the current implementation does is it allows > the > > server to work on an active set of pipelines. When > > there is an extremely large number of clients > > connected to the server there will obviously be > just > > as many pipelines to poll, if not more. However, > not > > all of these pipelines will contain requests. > Instead > > they may be open and connected for a future > request > > from the client, whom may not issue another > request > > for some time. So, to reduce the workload involved > in > > polling the Scheduler will have these queued for a > > wait peroid, which results in a signifigantly > reduced > > number of pipelines to poll. Thus the server can > spend > > more time concentrating on acquiring requests from > > pipelines that are producing them. To summarize, > the > > Scheduler will only be releasing the active > pipelines, > > an inactive pipeline will be polled only when its > wait > > peroid is over. > > > > This relates to the visible performance, if you > > request a page, the initial request will seem > instant. > > If after 4 to 5 seconds you request another page > > Simple seems to stall. This is intentional. Its > not > > that it is not performing well, its that the > pipeline > > is waiting as it has been inactive for 4 to 5 > seconds, > > typically the maximum wait is about 1000 ms. This > may > > seem usless, however I have found that when the > server > > is highly loaded the performance gains can be very > > signifigant. Also, the server will keep these > > connections open for much longer resulting in less > > dropped requests. > > > > For lightly loaded servers the visible performance > can > > be improved using the PipelineHandlerFactory. This > > will allow you to cap the maximum wait time. > Simply > > set the maximum wait to 200 ms and it will seem as > if > > the responses are instant. > > > > Thank you for your contribution, it will try to > > introduce some of the changes soon. > > > > Sorry for the length! > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Niall, > > > > > > * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. > > > Enjoy! > > > > > > * We noticed the speed increase but haven't > profiled > > > it enough to give you > > > numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, > > > enough to be noticable by us > > > humans. > > > > > > -- Gail. > > > > > > ------------- > > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > > ga...@sc... > > > 503.260.0910 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: > sim...@li... > > > > > > [mailto:sim...@li...] > > > On Behalf Of Niall > > > Gallagher > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM > > > To: sim...@li... > > > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple > Stability... > > > > > > > > > Hi Gail, > > > > > > I would really like to see your implementation > using > === message truncated === Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Jorge C. <Jor...@ge...> - 2005-08-10 20:51:21
|
Great! Then, I support the change! :D Cheers Jorge -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...]On Behalf Of Christophe Roudet Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:14 PM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... I have submitted on sourceforge a port of Gail's work on java 1.4 using http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/dcl/util/backport-util-concurrent/ A very basic package/import renaming. Christophe > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... [mailto:simpleweb- > sup...@li...] On Behalf Of Jorge CAMPOS > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:10 PM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > Hi Niall! > > Regarding JDK 1.5 changes, I think it will be better to implement them > using > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro > .h > tml > > To remain compatible with older JDKs (at least for us it is important to > be > backward compatible). > > Jorge > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...]On Behalf Of Niall > Gallagher > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:57 PM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > Hi Gail, > > I have had a look at your changes to the project. I > particularly agree that the Request needs a getPath > method as it can be frustrating creating a URIParser > for the getURI method. Also, in general the 1.5 > java.util.concurrent seems to clean up a lot of code. > > I will have a further look at the code, and I will try > to introduce the changes in either the upcomming > version or the one after. > > With regard to the simple.util.schedule pckage, it > seems that this is just a blocking PriorityQueue, > which will not account for wait times. This will > certainly seem faster to the users, as the delay > between requests will be 0 miliseconds each time. > > The current Scheduler implementation may seem a little > over the top! However it does a very important thing. > What the current implementation does is it allows the > server to work on an active set of pipelines. When > there is an extremely large number of clients > connected to the server there will obviously be just > as many pipelines to poll, if not more. However, not > all of these pipelines will contain requests. Instead > they may be open and connected for a future request > from the client, whom may not issue another request > for some time. So, to reduce the workload involved in > polling the Scheduler will have these queued for a > wait peroid, which results in a signifigantly reduced > number of pipelines to poll. Thus the server can spend > more time concentrating on acquiring requests from > pipelines that are producing them. To summarize, the > Scheduler will only be releasing the active pipelines, > an inactive pipeline will be polled only when its wait > peroid is over. > > This relates to the visible performance, if you > request a page, the initial request will seem instant. > If after 4 to 5 seconds you request another page > Simple seems to stall. This is intentional. Its not > that it is not performing well, its that the pipeline > is waiting as it has been inactive for 4 to 5 seconds, > typically the maximum wait is about 1000 ms. This may > seem usless, however I have found that when the server > is highly loaded the performance gains can be very > signifigant. Also, the server will keep these > connections open for much longer resulting in less > dropped requests. > > For lightly loaded servers the visible performance can > be improved using the PipelineHandlerFactory. This > will allow you to cap the maximum wait time. Simply > set the maximum wait to 200 ms and it will seem as if > the responses are instant. > > Thank you for your contribution, it will try to > introduce some of the changes soon. > > Sorry for the length! > > Niall > > > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > wrote: > > > Hi Niall, > > > > * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. > > Enjoy! > > > > * We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled > > it enough to give you > > numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, > > enough to be noticable by us > > humans. > > > > -- Gail. > > > > ------------- > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > ga...@sc... > > 503.260.0910 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sim...@li... > > > [mailto:sim...@li...] > > On Behalf Of Niall > > Gallagher > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM > > To: sim...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > > > > Hi Gail, > > > > I would really like to see your implementation using > > the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you > > can > > put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for > > Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=500356&group_id=62369&func=browse > > > > Also, how much faster is the implementation with the > > java.util.concurrent > > package. > > > > Niall > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Niall and everyone, > > > > > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the > > past > > > few weeks, trying to > > > track down a TCP error that was causing my > > instance > > > to eventually hang all > > > worker threads, even under light loads. > > > > > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > > > configuration (setting a > > > SO_LINGER timeout). > > > > > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > > > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > > > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > > > application to linger > > > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > > > distribution via Red Hat > > > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > > > problem completely going > > > away. > > > > > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be > > at > > > fault! > > > > > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > > > and thread-pooling code > > > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > > > wonderful package > > > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's > > software > > > was correct (because we > > > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > > > which have already been > > > proven correct). But, the migration to > > > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > > > faster Simple. > > > > > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > > java.util.concurrent, it > > > simplifies the code... > > > > > > -- Gail. > > > > > > ------------- > > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > > ga...@sc... > > > 503.260.0910 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > > Conference & EXPO > > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > > Projects > > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO September > > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > > * Testing & QA Security > > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Christophe R. <cr...@ac...> - 2005-08-10 20:16:12
|
I have submitted on sourceforge a port of Gail's work on java 1.4 using http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/dcl/util/backport-util-concurrent/ A very basic package/import renaming. Christophe > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... [mailto:simpleweb- > sup...@li...] On Behalf Of Jorge CAMPOS > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:10 PM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > Hi Niall! > > Regarding JDK 1.5 changes, I think it will be better to implement them > using > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro > .h > tml > > To remain compatible with older JDKs (at least for us it is important to > be > backward compatible). > > Jorge > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...]On Behalf Of Niall > Gallagher > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:57 PM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > Hi Gail, > > I have had a look at your changes to the project. I > particularly agree that the Request needs a getPath > method as it can be frustrating creating a URIParser > for the getURI method. Also, in general the 1.5 > java.util.concurrent seems to clean up a lot of code. > > I will have a further look at the code, and I will try > to introduce the changes in either the upcomming > version or the one after. > > With regard to the simple.util.schedule pckage, it > seems that this is just a blocking PriorityQueue, > which will not account for wait times. This will > certainly seem faster to the users, as the delay > between requests will be 0 miliseconds each time. > > The current Scheduler implementation may seem a little > over the top! However it does a very important thing. > What the current implementation does is it allows the > server to work on an active set of pipelines. When > there is an extremely large number of clients > connected to the server there will obviously be just > as many pipelines to poll, if not more. However, not > all of these pipelines will contain requests. Instead > they may be open and connected for a future request > from the client, whom may not issue another request > for some time. So, to reduce the workload involved in > polling the Scheduler will have these queued for a > wait peroid, which results in a signifigantly reduced > number of pipelines to poll. Thus the server can spend > more time concentrating on acquiring requests from > pipelines that are producing them. To summarize, the > Scheduler will only be releasing the active pipelines, > an inactive pipeline will be polled only when its wait > peroid is over. > > This relates to the visible performance, if you > request a page, the initial request will seem instant. > If after 4 to 5 seconds you request another page > Simple seems to stall. This is intentional. Its not > that it is not performing well, its that the pipeline > is waiting as it has been inactive for 4 to 5 seconds, > typically the maximum wait is about 1000 ms. This may > seem usless, however I have found that when the server > is highly loaded the performance gains can be very > signifigant. Also, the server will keep these > connections open for much longer resulting in less > dropped requests. > > For lightly loaded servers the visible performance can > be improved using the PipelineHandlerFactory. This > will allow you to cap the maximum wait time. Simply > set the maximum wait to 200 ms and it will seem as if > the responses are instant. > > Thank you for your contribution, it will try to > introduce some of the changes soon. > > Sorry for the length! > > Niall > > > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > wrote: > > > Hi Niall, > > > > * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. > > Enjoy! > > > > * We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled > > it enough to give you > > numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, > > enough to be noticable by us > > humans. > > > > -- Gail. > > > > ------------- > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > ga...@sc... > > 503.260.0910 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sim...@li... > > > [mailto:sim...@li...] > > On Behalf Of Niall > > Gallagher > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM > > To: sim...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > > > > Hi Gail, > > > > I would really like to see your implementation using > > the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you > > can > > put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for > > Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=500356&group_id=62369&func=browse > > > > Also, how much faster is the implementation with the > > java.util.concurrent > > package. > > > > Niall > > > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Niall and everyone, > > > > > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the > > past > > > few weeks, trying to > > > track down a TCP error that was causing my > > instance > > > to eventually hang all > > > worker threads, even under light loads. > > > > > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > > > configuration (setting a > > > SO_LINGER timeout). > > > > > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > > > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > > > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > > > application to linger > > > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > > > distribution via Red Hat > > > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > > > problem completely going > > > away. > > > > > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be > > at > > > fault! > > > > > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > > > and thread-pooling code > > > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > > > wonderful package > > > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's > > software > > > was correct (because we > > > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > > > which have already been > > > proven correct). But, the migration to > > > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > > > faster Simple. > > > > > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > > java.util.concurrent, it > > > simplifies the code... > > > > > > -- Gail. > > > > > > ------------- > > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > > ga...@sc... > > > 503.260.0910 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > > Conference & EXPO > > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > > Projects > > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO September > > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > > * Testing & QA Security > > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Jorge C. <Jor...@ge...> - 2005-08-10 20:09:57
|
Hi Niall! Regarding JDK 1.5 changes, I think it will be better to implement them using http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro.h tml To remain compatible with older JDKs (at least for us it is important to be backward compatible). Jorge -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...]On Behalf Of Niall Gallagher Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:57 PM To: sim...@li... Subject: RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Gail, I have had a look at your changes to the project. I particularly agree that the Request needs a getPath method as it can be frustrating creating a URIParser for the getURI method. Also, in general the 1.5 java.util.concurrent seems to clean up a lot of code. I will have a further look at the code, and I will try to introduce the changes in either the upcomming version or the one after. With regard to the simple.util.schedule pckage, it seems that this is just a blocking PriorityQueue, which will not account for wait times. This will certainly seem faster to the users, as the delay between requests will be 0 miliseconds each time. The current Scheduler implementation may seem a little over the top! However it does a very important thing. What the current implementation does is it allows the server to work on an active set of pipelines. When there is an extremely large number of clients connected to the server there will obviously be just as many pipelines to poll, if not more. However, not all of these pipelines will contain requests. Instead they may be open and connected for a future request from the client, whom may not issue another request for some time. So, to reduce the workload involved in polling the Scheduler will have these queued for a wait peroid, which results in a signifigantly reduced number of pipelines to poll. Thus the server can spend more time concentrating on acquiring requests from pipelines that are producing them. To summarize, the Scheduler will only be releasing the active pipelines, an inactive pipeline will be polled only when its wait peroid is over. This relates to the visible performance, if you request a page, the initial request will seem instant. If after 4 to 5 seconds you request another page Simple seems to stall. This is intentional. Its not that it is not performing well, its that the pipeline is waiting as it has been inactive for 4 to 5 seconds, typically the maximum wait is about 1000 ms. This may seem usless, however I have found that when the server is highly loaded the performance gains can be very signifigant. Also, the server will keep these connections open for much longer resulting in less dropped requests. For lightly loaded servers the visible performance can be improved using the PipelineHandlerFactory. This will allow you to cap the maximum wait time. Simply set the maximum wait to 200 ms and it will seem as if the responses are instant. Thank you for your contribution, it will try to introduce some of the changes soon. Sorry for the length! Niall --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> wrote: > Hi Niall, > > * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. > Enjoy! > > * We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled > it enough to give you > numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, > enough to be noticable by us > humans. > > -- Gail. > > ------------- > Gail Rahn Frederick > ga...@sc... > 503.260.0910 > > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...] > On Behalf Of Niall > Gallagher > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > Hi Gail, > > I would really like to see your implementation using > the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you > can > put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for > Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=500356&group_id=62369&func=browse > > Also, how much faster is the implementation with the > java.util.concurrent > package. > > Niall > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > wrote: > > > Hi Niall and everyone, > > > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the > past > > few weeks, trying to > > track down a TCP error that was causing my > instance > > to eventually hang all > > worker threads, even under light loads. > > > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > > configuration (setting a > > SO_LINGER timeout). > > > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > > application to linger > > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > > distribution via Red Hat > > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > > problem completely going > > away. > > > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be > at > > fault! > > > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > > and thread-pooling code > > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > > wonderful package > > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's > software > > was correct (because we > > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > > which have already been > > proven correct). But, the migration to > > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > > faster Simple. > > > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > java.util.concurrent, it > > simplifies the code... > > > > -- Gail. > > > > ------------- > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > ga...@sc... > > 503.260.0910 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > * Testing & QA Security > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-10 19:57:03
|
Hi Gail, I have had a look at your changes to the project. I particularly agree that the Request needs a getPath method as it can be frustrating creating a URIParser for the getURI method. Also, in general the 1.5 java.util.concurrent seems to clean up a lot of code. I will have a further look at the code, and I will try to introduce the changes in either the upcomming version or the one after. With regard to the simple.util.schedule pckage, it seems that this is just a blocking PriorityQueue, which will not account for wait times. This will certainly seem faster to the users, as the delay between requests will be 0 miliseconds each time. The current Scheduler implementation may seem a little over the top! However it does a very important thing. What the current implementation does is it allows the server to work on an active set of pipelines. When there is an extremely large number of clients connected to the server there will obviously be just as many pipelines to poll, if not more. However, not all of these pipelines will contain requests. Instead they may be open and connected for a future request from the client, whom may not issue another request for some time. So, to reduce the workload involved in polling the Scheduler will have these queued for a wait peroid, which results in a signifigantly reduced number of pipelines to poll. Thus the server can spend more time concentrating on acquiring requests from pipelines that are producing them. To summarize, the Scheduler will only be releasing the active pipelines, an inactive pipeline will be polled only when its wait peroid is over. This relates to the visible performance, if you request a page, the initial request will seem instant. If after 4 to 5 seconds you request another page Simple seems to stall. This is intentional. Its not that it is not performing well, its that the pipeline is waiting as it has been inactive for 4 to 5 seconds, typically the maximum wait is about 1000 ms. This may seem usless, however I have found that when the server is highly loaded the performance gains can be very signifigant. Also, the server will keep these connections open for much longer resulting in less dropped requests. For lightly loaded servers the visible performance can be improved using the PipelineHandlerFactory. This will allow you to cap the maximum wait time. Simply set the maximum wait to 200 ms and it will seem as if the responses are instant. Thank you for your contribution, it will try to introduce some of the changes soon. Sorry for the length! Niall --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> wrote: > Hi Niall, > > * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. > Enjoy! > > * We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled > it enough to give you > numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, > enough to be noticable by us > humans. > > -- Gail. > > ------------- > Gail Rahn Frederick > ga...@sc... > 503.260.0910 > > -----Original Message----- > From: sim...@li... > [mailto:sim...@li...] > On Behalf Of Niall > Gallagher > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM > To: sim...@li... > Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... > > > Hi Gail, > > I would really like to see your implementation using > the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you > can > put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for > Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=500356&group_id=62369&func=browse > > Also, how much faster is the implementation with the > java.util.concurrent > package. > > Niall > > --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> > wrote: > > > Hi Niall and everyone, > > > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the > past > > few weeks, trying to > > track down a TCP error that was causing my > instance > > to eventually hang all > > worker threads, even under light loads. > > > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > > configuration (setting a > > SO_LINGER timeout). > > > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > > application to linger > > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > > distribution via Red Hat > > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > > problem completely going > > away. > > > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be > at > > fault! > > > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > > and thread-pooling code > > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > > wonderful package > > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's > software > > was correct (because we > > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > > which have already been > > proven correct). But, the migration to > > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > > faster Simple. > > > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > java.util.concurrent, it > > simplifies the code... > > > > -- Gail. > > > > ------------- > > Gail Rahn Frederick > > ga...@sc... > > 503.260.0910 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > > Conference & EXPO > > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > > Development Lifecycle Practices > > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing > Projects > > & Teams * Testing & QA > > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > Niall Gallagher > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development > Lifecycle Practices Agile & > Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams > * Testing & QA Security > * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Gail R. F. <ga...@sc...> - 2005-08-10 16:13:38
|
Hi Niall, * I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. Enjoy! * We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled it enough to give = you numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, enough to be noticable by = us humans. -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 -----Original Message----- From: sim...@li... [mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of = Niall Gallagher Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM To: sim...@li... Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability... Hi Gail, I would really like to see your implementation using the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you can=20 put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=3D500356&group_id=3D62369&func=3Dbro= wse Also, how much faster is the implementation with the = java.util.concurrent package. Niall --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> wrote: > Hi Niall and everyone, >=20 > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past > few weeks, trying to > track down a TCP error that was causing my instance > to eventually hang all > worker threads, even under light loads. >=20 > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > configuration (setting a > SO_LINGER timeout). >=20 > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > application to linger > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > distribution via Red Hat > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > problem completely going > away. >=20 > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at > fault! >=20 > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > and thread-pooling code > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > wonderful package > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software > was correct (because we > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > which have already been > proven correct). But, the migration to > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > faster Simple. >=20 > I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it=20 > simplifies the code... >=20 > -- Gail. >=20 > ------------- > Gail Rahn Frederick > ga...@sc... > 503.260.0910 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf=20 > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support >=20 Niall Gallagher =09 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20 http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20 =20 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO = September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile = & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA = Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-10 10:22:26
|
Hi Jan, The next release of Simple should be very soon. Right now I have implemented everything I wanted to for this release, including a new configuration utility for the simple.util.connect package. The simple.template package has been reworked and extended quite signifigantly and I have made all the nessecary updates to the simple.util.schedule and simple.util.process packages. I am currently finishing an XML parser utility and once that has finished there will be some testing and then a release. I think anytime within the next couple of days! Niall --- Jan Mikkelsen <jm...@ad...> wrote: > Hi > > We are using Simple on Red Hat and we also have a > problem with Simple > stopping to respond. I need to if we must do both: > - Update the kernel as suggested by Gail? > - Update Simple when a new version becomes > available. BTW: when do you > think that will happen, Niall? > > Thanks, > > Jan > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs |
|
From: Jan M. <jm...@ad...> - 2005-08-10 10:03:15
|
Hi We are using Simple on Red Hat and we also have a problem with Simple stopping to respond. I need to if we must do both: - Update the kernel as suggested by Gail? - Update Simple when a new version becomes available. BTW: when do you think that will happen, Niall? Thanks, Jan |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-10 09:08:23
|
Hi Gail, I would really like to see your implementation using the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you can put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for Simple. You can locate it at the following URL: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=500356&group_id=62369&func=browse Also, how much faster is the implementation with the java.util.concurrent package. Niall --- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...> wrote: > Hi Niall and everyone, > > As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past > few weeks, trying to > track down a TCP error that was causing my instance > to eventually hang all > worker threads, even under light loads. > > I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket > configuration (setting a > SO_LINGER timeout). > > In the end, we found spotty documentation about a > Linux 2.4.x kernel bug > that can cause sockets closed properly by the > application to linger > indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat > distribution via Red Hat > Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the > problem completely going > away. > > I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at > fault! > > Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization > and thread-pooling code > with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and > wonderful package > java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software > was correct (because we > saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, > which have already been > proven correct). But, the migration to > java.util.concurrent seems to make a > faster Simple. > > I'm happy to contribute back the port to > java.util.concurrent, it simplifies > the code... > > -- Gail. > > ------------- > Gail Rahn Frederick > ga...@sc... > 503.260.0910 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software > Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * > Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects > & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Simpleweb-Support mailing list > Sim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > Niall Gallagher ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs |
|
From: Gail R. F. <ga...@sc...> - 2005-08-09 19:12:40
|
Hi Niall and everyone, As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past few weeks, trying = to track down a TCP error that was causing my instance to eventually hang = all worker threads, even under light loads. I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket configuration (setting a SO_LINGER timeout).=20 In the end, we found spotty documentation about a Linux 2.4.x kernel bug that can cause sockets closed properly by the application to linger indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat distribution via Red = Hat Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the problem completely = going away.=20 I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at fault! Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization and thread-pooling = code with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and wonderful package java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software was correct = (because we saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs, which have already = been proven correct). But, the migration to java.util.concurrent seems to = make a faster Simple. I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it = simplifies the code... -- Gail. ------------- Gail Rahn Frederick ga...@sc... 503.260.0910 |
|
From: Niall G. <gal...@ya...> - 2005-08-06 09:37:41
|
Hi Andrew, There is not really a particular reason for choosing an array over a linked list, however I think using an array is a simpler solution! Niall --- Andrew Madigan <and...@ya...> wrote: > I wonder why the queue uses an array and not a > linked list? > > Niall Gallagher wrote: > > >Hi Jorge, > > > >Apologies for contacting you directly. However, I > >think I have found a solution, but I don't want to > be > >too hasty. What triggered this is when you said > that > >at least 35 threads had to be involved. > > > >So, I downloaded the simple-test.tar.gz and resized > >the ProcessQueue, this caused a deadlock with the > very > >same test case. So if you could be so kind as to > check > >to see if this works for you! In the file > >ProcessQueue.java change the following line. > > > >this.ready = new ObjectQueue(size); > > > >to > > > >this.ready = new ObjectQueue(100); > > > >Making sure that you dont resize beyond 100. I > think > >the problem is that the ProcessQueue.resize does > not > >resize the ObjectQueue. This seems to work for my > >tests? > > > >Niall > > > > > > > >--- Jorge CAMPOS <Jor...@ge...> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi everybody! > >> > >>From our tests with our application, it seems that > >>Simple hangs only when > >>using at least 35 threads in parallel (we're > testing > >>in a 4Way Xeon with HT > >>running SuSE SLES 9.0 and JDK 1.5.0_04). From the > >>thread dump and some > >>printlns in the code it seems that one thread > >>(dequeuer) blocks because > >>there are no more requests to be processed. After > >>that everything starts > >>piling up (all the dequeuers wait for the first > one > >>and the enqueuers too). > >>I know it sound a bit weird, but it could be > related > >>to the locking queue > >>implementation. > >> > >>I've tried to reproduce the problem using the demo > >>server and I didn't > >>succeed. I guess the context is different (to > >>simulate some load I've put > >>one sleep and some printlns). This made me look > >>again at our thread dump... > >>and I can't see anything related to our > application > >>(it seems that Simple > >>blocks within its code). > >> > >>One question Andrew: what are the specs of your > >>machine? > >> > >>I'm asking this, because I've seen some locking > >>problems in applications > >>running with HyperThreading ON. > >> > >>We will test the application running with > >>HyperThreading off and in another > >>machine to see if we can reproduce the problem. > >> > >>All your support is greatly appreciated. > >> > >>Ah, one more thing. Since in our thread dump it > >>seems all the threads are > >>still alive, I don't think this particular case > >>relates to a out of memory > >>exception (also there are no exceptions in the > logs) > >> > >> > >>Jorge > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: > sim...@li... > >> > >> > >> > >[mailto:sim...@li...]On > > > > > >>Behalf Of Niall > >>Gallagher > >>Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:21 AM > >>To: sim...@li... > >>Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] FIX: Simple stops > >>responding > >> > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>I have taken note of the last two comments with > >>regard > >>to the server freezing! In response to the queue > >>implementation, I think that the implementation of > >>the > >>Scheduler, ObjectQueue, and ProcessQueue involved > in > >>dispatching requests is fine. There are no > problems > >>here. > >> > >>However, the simple.http.connect implementation > may > >>be > >>at fault, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the > >>java.lang.OutOfMemory error will cause the server > to > >>stop responding under very heavy load. > >> > >>I have uploaded my test framework for anyone > wishing > >>to use it to see if it will freeze their server. > If > >>it does then great! let me know what happened. > >>However, I have put through well over a 100 > million > >>requests using my test framework today alone and, > >>with > >>the catch(Throwable) amendments there is no > >>deadlock, > >>not even a lost thread. > >> > >>The test framework can be downloaded at > >>http://simpleweb.sf.net/simple-test.tar.gz. > >> > >>So, in conclusion, the application is thread safe > >>and > >>working properly with catch(Throwable) amendments. > >>However, the TCP related issues have not been > >>thought > >>out carefully! And I believe the > simple.http.connect > >>package needs to be reworked! I will release all > the > >>bug fixes as soon as I am convinced everything is > >>working. > >> > >>Thanks for the bug reports, if anyone thinks the > >>freeze is related to somthing else please let me > >>know > >>so that I can explore it! > >> > >>Niall > >> > >> > >>Niall Gallagher > >> > >>__________________________________________________ > >>Do You Yahoo!? > >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > >>protection around > >>http://mail.yahoo.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux > >>Migration Strategies > >>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, > >>straightforward articles, > >>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you > >>need to get up to > >>speed, fast. > >> > >> > >> > >http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > === message truncated === Niall Gallagher __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Andrew M. <and...@ya...> - 2005-08-05 23:05:45
|
I wonder why the queue uses an array and not a linked list? Niall Gallagher wrote: >Hi Jorge, > >Apologies for contacting you directly. However, I >think I have found a solution, but I don't want to be >too hasty. What triggered this is when you said that >at least 35 threads had to be involved. > >So, I downloaded the simple-test.tar.gz and resized >the ProcessQueue, this caused a deadlock with the very >same test case. So if you could be so kind as to check >to see if this works for you! In the file >ProcessQueue.java change the following line. > >this.ready = new ObjectQueue(size); > >to > >this.ready = new ObjectQueue(100); > >Making sure that you dont resize beyond 100. I think >the problem is that the ProcessQueue.resize does not >resize the ObjectQueue. This seems to work for my >tests? > >Niall > > > >--- Jorge CAMPOS <Jor...@ge...> wrote: > > > >>Hi everybody! >> >>From our tests with our application, it seems that >>Simple hangs only when >>using at least 35 threads in parallel (we're testing >>in a 4Way Xeon with HT >>running SuSE SLES 9.0 and JDK 1.5.0_04). From the >>thread dump and some >>printlns in the code it seems that one thread >>(dequeuer) blocks because >>there are no more requests to be processed. After >>that everything starts >>piling up (all the dequeuers wait for the first one >>and the enqueuers too). >>I know it sound a bit weird, but it could be related >>to the locking queue >>implementation. >> >>I've tried to reproduce the problem using the demo >>server and I didn't >>succeed. I guess the context is different (to >>simulate some load I've put >>one sleep and some printlns). This made me look >>again at our thread dump... >>and I can't see anything related to our application >>(it seems that Simple >>blocks within its code). >> >>One question Andrew: what are the specs of your >>machine? >> >>I'm asking this, because I've seen some locking >>problems in applications >>running with HyperThreading ON. >> >>We will test the application running with >>HyperThreading off and in another >>machine to see if we can reproduce the problem. >> >>All your support is greatly appreciated. >> >>Ah, one more thing. Since in our thread dump it >>seems all the threads are >>still alive, I don't think this particular case >>relates to a out of memory >>exception (also there are no exceptions in the logs) >> >> >>Jorge >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: sim...@li... >> >> >> >[mailto:sim...@li...]On > > >>Behalf Of Niall >>Gallagher >>Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:21 AM >>To: sim...@li... >>Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] FIX: Simple stops >>responding >> >> >>Hi, >> >>I have taken note of the last two comments with >>regard >>to the server freezing! In response to the queue >>implementation, I think that the implementation of >>the >>Scheduler, ObjectQueue, and ProcessQueue involved in >>dispatching requests is fine. There are no problems >>here. >> >>However, the simple.http.connect implementation may >>be >>at fault, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the >>java.lang.OutOfMemory error will cause the server to >>stop responding under very heavy load. >> >>I have uploaded my test framework for anyone wishing >>to use it to see if it will freeze their server. If >>it does then great! let me know what happened. >>However, I have put through well over a 100 million >>requests using my test framework today alone and, >>with >>the catch(Throwable) amendments there is no >>deadlock, >>not even a lost thread. >> >>The test framework can be downloaded at >>http://simpleweb.sf.net/simple-test.tar.gz. >> >>So, in conclusion, the application is thread safe >>and >>working properly with catch(Throwable) amendments. >>However, the TCP related issues have not been >>thought >>out carefully! And I believe the simple.http.connect >>package needs to be reworked! I will release all the >>bug fixes as soon as I am convinced everything is >>working. >> >>Thanks for the bug reports, if anyone thinks the >>freeze is related to somthing else please let me >>know >>so that I can explore it! >> >>Niall >> >> >>Niall Gallagher >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam >>protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------- > > >>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux >>Migration Strategies >>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, >>straightforward articles, >>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you >>need to get up to >>speed, fast. >> >> >> >http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > > >>_______________________________________________ >>Simpleweb-Support mailing list >>Sim...@li... >> >> >> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > >> >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------- > > >>SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software >>Conference & EXPO >>September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * >>Development Lifecycle Practices >>Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects >>& Teams * Testing & QA >>Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * >>http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf >>_______________________________________________ >>Simpleweb-Support mailing list >>Sim...@li... >> >> >> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > > >Niall Gallagher > > > >____________________________________________________ >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO >September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices >Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA >Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf >_______________________________________________ >Simpleweb-Support mailing list >Sim...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support > > > |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
