On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > 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? > > The zone file is now: > > ; update.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. > > > > > ; WARNING WARNING WARNING > ; Changing the above entries to point to eos can overload it. Do not > enable > ; them unless either eos is prepared for the load or the TTL is suitably > ; lowered > update.services CNAME sd-web4.staroffice.de. > update23.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. > update24.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. > update30.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. > update31.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. > update32.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. > update33.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. > > > > > update34.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. > update35.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. > update36.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. > update38.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. > > > > > > I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32? > > Only yesterday's changes to DNS were reverted. > OK, good...it seems we can't go below update34 -- used for OO 3.2 without further investigation. Meanwhile I will delete the ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update so it causes no further confusion... > > > > 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 > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think." -- Niels Bohr