On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Wenxiang Wu wrote:
> From what I can tell, there isn't a specific pattern that. But from this
> small sample size, users that run into this problem are those with higher
> levels of usage, i.e. connections with more traffic.
>
> Also, this *seems* to affect users
>From what I can tell, there isn't a specific pattern that. But from this
small sample size, users that run into this problem are those with higher
levels of usage, i.e. connections with more traffic.
Also, this *seems* to affect users in the same LAN more. The 2 groups of
affected users I worked
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Glyph wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Wenxiang Wu wrote:
>
> Unfortunately for performance reasons, I cannot test this with any other
> reactor. And the only time I have ever been able to reproduce this was when
> I left my client running overnight.
>
>
>
On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Wenxiang Wu wrote:
> Unfortunately for performance reasons, I cannot test this with any other
> reactor. And the only time I have ever been able to reproduce this was when I
> left my client running overnight.
Understandable; I've never managed to reliably reprodu
Unfortunately for performance reasons, I cannot test this with any other
reactor. And the only time I have ever been able to reproduce this was when
I left my client running overnight.
However due to the amount of traffic we are seeing, I am able to reliably
find connections stuck in this state. I
On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Wenxiang Wu wrote:
> Has anyone else experienced this weird problem? I'd love to provide more
> information regarding this bug.
I have seen bugs which _might_ be this problem, but I'm not sure. I don't
think I've ever been able to reproduce it.
Can you test with
On Feb 23, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Pierre Jaury wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 09:17 PM, Glyph wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Christopher Armstrong
>> mailto:ra...@twistedmatrix.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's a reasonable change to make, and I don't foresee any
>>> problems with it, so I think
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Sergey Gerasimov wrote:
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Itamar Turner-Trauring [mailto:ita...@futurefoundries.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2013 4:38 AM
> *To:* ser...@gmail.com; Twisted general discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [Twisted-Python] combine local and re
From: Itamar Turner-Trauring [mailto:ita...@futurefoundries.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 4:38 AM
To: ser...@gmail.com; Twisted general discussion
Subject: Re: [Twisted-Python] combine local and remote calls in perspective
brokers
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Sergey Geras
