On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 05:47:02PM -0600, Julien Cristau wrote:
> So I wonder if we should:
> - kill mirror-bytemark until we fix the I/O issue that plagues us there
Yes, please.
> - increase PUSHDELAY
Can do.
> - change ftpsync so the first mirror that times out waiting for stage1
> locks
]] Julien Cristau
> On 12/12/2017 03:39 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > DSA, thoughts on this? Sounds reasonable?
> >
> I think the issue is also made worse by mirror-bytemark being
> consistently much slower than the other backends, and how ftpsync
> behaves in a pathological way when mirrors
On 12/12/2017 03:39 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Santiago Vila
>
>> While building a lot of packages today, I found that this is happening again:
>>
>> 503 Quorum weight not reached [IP: 151.101.112.204 80]
>
> Hi,
>
> yeah, we saw an outage on the 9th, need to investigate why it hit us.
On 12/12/2017 03:39 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> DSA, thoughts on this? Sounds reasonable?
>
I think the issue is also made worse by mirror-bytemark being
consistently much slower than the other backends, and how ftpsync
behaves in a pathological way when mirrors have very different speeds.
]] Santiago Vila
> While building a lot of packages today, I found that this is happening again:
>
> 503 Quorum weight not reached [IP: 151.101.112.204 80]
Hi,
yeah, we saw an outage on the 9th, need to investigate why it hit us. I
suspect it was due to (all dates the the 9th, all times are
reopen 877966
thanks
Hi.
While building a lot of packages today, I found that this is happening again:
503 Quorum weight not reached [IP: 151.101.112.204 80]
Thanks.
6 matches
Mail list logo
