On 06/22/2011 07:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Bolstridge, Andrew wrote on Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 14:51:37 +:
>> Absolutely. The first thing to do is provide serf as a 2nd option,
>> make a big song and dance about how great it is, and basically
>> advertise the fact that it is there (from a user
che.org; OBones; Uwe
> > Schuster
> > Subject: Re: serf and sourceforge.net don't get along (was on users@: Re:
> > 1.7.0-alpha1 feedback)
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Greg Stein
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: 21 June 2011 18:27
> To: Justin Erenkrantz
> Cc: Greg Stein; Daniel Shahaf; dev@subversion.apache.org; OBones; Uwe
> Schuster
> Subject: Re: serf and sourceforge.net don't get along (
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> It's a bit worrying that our new default will require admins to tweak
> the server config to provide adequate performance for clients in
> the default configuration.
>
> Then again, there's the chicken-and-egg problem. If we don't force
>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > That definitely implies something wrong on the client. If the server
> > is slow, then the client should mostly be blocking.
> >
> > I'll investigate after I finish with this
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> That definitely implies something wrong on the client. If the server
> is slow, then the client should mostly be blocking.
>
> I'll investigate after I finish with this XML parsing thing in
> ra_serf. (which may fix the observed memory problem)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:30, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 15:15:53 +0200:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:36:11PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> > It would be nice to get an official confirmation about this from SF.net.
>> >
>> > Because if this is the cas
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> It could be possible that SF.net is flagging the multitude of GET
> requests as a DoS and intentionally throttling them. But that's just
> a guess.
I was going to guess it could be something like that, or possibly that
the server settings
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 15:15:53 +0200:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:36:11PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > It would be nice to get an official confirmation about this from SF.net.
> >
> > Because if this is the case, I think we should seriously reconsider the
> > decision
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> [ Moving to dev@ ]
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:27:55PM +0200, OBones wrote:
>> Uwe Schuster wrote:
>> >Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >>On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:02:08AM +0200, Uwe Schuster wrote:
>> >>>Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >>>
>> >
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:36:11PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> It would be nice to get an official confirmation about this from SF.net.
>
> Because if this is the case, I think we should seriously reconsider the
> decision of making serf the default for 1.7. We definitely cannot afford
> to br
11 matches
Mail list logo
