On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > >> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400: > >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: > >>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200: > >>>>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can > >>>>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the > >>>>> servers got in trouble? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file > >>>> > >>> > >>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ? > >> > >> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has > >> > >> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e > 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c > >> > >> EU: > >> 232046 update30 > >> 35548 update34 > >> 76543 update35 > >> > >> > >> US: > >> 198996 update30 > >> 33450 update34 > >> 71117 update35 > >> 0 update36 > > > > We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same > way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32 > uh oh...this should have been setup before and Oliver said he requested this in the first post here. And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted? I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32? I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing problems, were they? The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know what it's doing. When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues? > > > ./update/aoo341/check.Update > > ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > > ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update > > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update > > ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > > ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update > > > > It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30. > > > > But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July? We've > certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them. They should not > be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site. > > I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by > the errors in update30? > Rob...update 30 is completely out of the question, and we simply can not do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it. There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used, and is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one so we won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages of testing. Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I mean the whole directory. > -Rob > > > Regards, > > Dave > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think." -- Niels Bohr