On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07:18AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 29-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55:22AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Barring any regression from this situation, I consider this bug
> > > resolved by those specific patches.
> >
> > Does the maximum
On 29-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55:22AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Barring any regression from this situation, I consider this bug
> > resolved by those specific patches.
>
> Does the maximum download speed still approximate to your bandwidth?
Yes. If anything,
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55:22AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 28-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > Actually, I have had another thought.
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
> > index ed53849..f04cadf 100755
> > --- a/apt-cacher2
> > +++ b/apt-cacher2
>
> I can con
On 28-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Actually, I have had another thought.
>
> Try this:
>
> diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
> index ed53849..f04cadf 100755
> --- a/apt-cacher2
> +++ b/apt-cacher2
I can confirm that this improves the situation for me too.
Specifically, I've built an ‘ap
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 03:17:00PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 22:04 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > Something like
> >
> > wget -O /dev/null
> > http://localhost:3142/ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/eglibc/locales_2.10.2-2_all.deb
> >
> > ought to give you a realistic vi
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 22:04 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Something like
>
> wget -O /dev/null
> http://localhost:3142/ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/eglibc/locales_2.10.2-2_all.deb
>
> ought to give you a realistic view of the throughput.
>
> Sorry to have taken so long to get to the bottom
[context: a bug, that has been hard to track down for a while, sees a
flurry of activity and improvement in multiple installations; and then
the developer sees fit to apologise. I disagree; praise is appropriate.]
On 28-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Sorry to have taken so long to get to the bott
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:06:14PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 11:34 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > Does that help?
> YES (that is, changing to 0.1). apt-cacher CPU use is basically
> undetectable; 1% was the highest I saw.
Finally!
> > Does it hit your throughput?
> T
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 11:34 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Actually, I have had another thought.
>
> Try this:
>
> diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
> index ed53849..f04cadf 100755
> --- a/apt-cacher2
> +++ b/apt-cacher2
> @@ -1211,7 +1211,7 @@ sub connect_curlm {
>
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:27:12AM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Is this in addition to the previous patches, or in place of them?
As well.
Mark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Just taking the easy questions for now:
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 11:08 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > With both these patches (8c7a9ed and c99bd95) applied, I'm now seeing
> > > ???apt-cacher??? processes maintain a negligible CPU usage,
Is this in addition to the previous patches, or in place of them?
Ross
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 11:34 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> Actually, I have had another thought.
>
> Try this:
>
> diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
> index ed53849..f04cadf 100755
> --- a/apt-cacher2
> +++ b/apt-cacher
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:45 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > On 26-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:49:31AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > It now has occasional stretches of full-CPU usage, often a few
> > >
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > With both these patches (8c7a9ed and c99bd95) applied, I'm now seeing
> > ???apt-cacher??? processes maintain a negligible CPU usage, even when APT
> > is fetching from them.
> >
> > This is highly imprecise (I'm just watching ???hto
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:45 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 26-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:49:31AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > It now has occasional stretches of full-CPU usage, often a few
> > > minutes long; but the usage does at least drop back to a
> > > neglig
On 26-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:49:31AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > It now has occasional stretches of full-CPU usage, often a few
> > minutes long; but the usage does at least drop back to a
> > negligible idle state after a while.
>
> Well that is progress at le
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:49:31AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
> > index 8ac5b91..8c7a9ed 100755
> > --- a/apt-cacher2
> > +++ b/apt-cacher2
> [???]
>
> This applies cleanly to the source, and I have now built and installed
> the resulting ???apt-cacher??? p
> diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
> index 8ac5b91..8c7a9ed 100755
> --- a/apt-cacher2
> +++ b/apt-cacher2
[…]
This applies cleanly to the source, and I have now built and installed
the resulting ‘apt-cacher’ package.
It now has occasional stretches of full-CPU usage, often a few minutes
lo
(Forwarding a message with an updated patch, presumably the bug report
address was omitted by mistake; sorry, Mark, if that's not the case.)
--
\ “You are welcome to visit the cemetery where famous Russian and |
`\Soviet composers, artists, and writers are buried daily except |
_o__)
On 25-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:02:24AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > This patch (and the previous ones sent today) do not apply cleanly
> > against ???apt-cacher??? 1.6.9; they are trying to patch a file
> > (???{a,b}/apt-cacher???) that does not exist. Perhaps you'
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:02:24AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 25-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > Sorry, there was a missing block in the last patch. This one is
> > correcyt (I hope!)
>
> This patch (and the previous ones sent today) do not apply cleanly
> against ???apt-cacher??? 1.6.9; they
On 25-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Sorry, there was a missing block in the last patch. This one is
> correcyt (I hope!)
This patch (and the previous ones sent today) do not apply cleanly
against ‘apt-cacher’ 1.6.9; they are trying to patch a file
(‘{a,b}/apt-cacher’) that does not exist. Perhap
All produced the expected output.
I've been wondering if the problem is in Perl::IO in stable, or some
other underlying library rather than apt-cacher code.
I'll try the patch you sent.
Ross
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:16 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:21:30PM +1100, Ben Fi
Sorry, there was a missing block in the last patch. This one is correcyt
(I hope!)
Mark
diff --git a/apt-cacher b/apt-cacher
index 8ac5b91..8c7a9ed 100755
--- a/apt-cacher
+++ b/apt-cacher
@@ -1153,22 +1153,10 @@ sub connect_curlm {
my $active_handles = 0;
my $idcounter=1;
Hi,
I have just come up with another approach that completely removes the
alarm() calls and just uses select().
Could you try this.
Mark
commit 5154023053d20e610879cd0a1ee22a8916cd9747
Author: Mark Hindley
Date: Wed Nov 25 15:00:40 2009 +
Another approach: Don't use alarm() at all,
On 25-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Could you run these perl one-liners from a console and check my
> expected results.
I'm running these on the same machine where I'm experiencing this bug
(a PowerPC64 box running Debian Squeeze).
> perl -e'alarm 1;printf "Num: %d\tTime left: %f\n", select und
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:21:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
Could you run these perl one-liners from a console and check my expected
results.
perl -e'alarm 1;printf "Num: %d\tTime left: %f\n", select undef, undef, undef,
3.0'
Expect: Alarm clock
perl -e'alarm 5;prin
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:21:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
>
> On 24-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > Can you try the patch at
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533830#15
> >
> > I have had a report that it fixes this bug.
>
> The patch is already
Thanks for the response.
On 24-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Can you try the patch at
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533830#15
>
> I have had a report that it fixes this bug.
The patch is already applied AFAICT (my report to this bug specifies
‘apt-cacher’ version 1.6.9),
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:33:53PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Package: apt-cacher
> Version: 1.6.9
> Severity: normal
>
> I'm also seeing ???apt-cacher??? processes occupy the entire CPU on which
> they run. When I attach ???strace??? to such a process, I see this output
> repeated endlessly as fa
Package: apt-cacher
Version: 1.6.9
Severity: normal
I'm also seeing ‘apt-cacher’ processes occupy the entire CPU on which
they run. When I attach ‘strace’ to such a process, I see this output
repeated endlessly as fast as the console can write:
=
[…]
poll([{fd=6, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI}], 1, 0
31 matches
Mail list logo
