[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: packages.debian.org status update?

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:58:34AM -0700, Scott wrote:
| [If there is a better forum for these questions, please advise and I'll 
| redirect.  Thank you]
| Is there any more current information than what can be found here?:
| http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00035.html
| That report is dated 8 January 2006 and it's now 3 February 2006. 
| Nothing has changed. The site is still down.
| I think that's some sort of record for web sites I've visited. :-)
| In the above referenced email I read:
| "packages.debian.org was disabled because the load of the machine hosting
| it, saens.debian.org, which also is our only ftp.debian.org at the
| moment, rose to 141.32, 135.82, 135.71, as on January 4th, due to
| amongst others a cron job from packages.debian.org started in 2005 still
| running -- and probably more. packages.debian.org was already very slow
| for days, as multiple people noticed on IRC."
| What type of cron job could have that been (he didn't say)?

An inefficient one.  Or at least one whose algorithms don't scale to
larger data sets.

Here's an example of a long-running cron job that shouldn't have been:

| And is it 
| *still* running?

Not likely.  The admins would have killed it when they noticed the

| And what does "and probably more mean"?

They didn't investigate all components on the system.  The analysis
assumes that if there is one task associated with the packages site
that doesn't scale to the current amount of data then there are
probably others as well.

| This all rather odd.
| Again,  I don'' recall a web server out of commission this long unless 
| it was permanent.

This isn't so much a web server as it is an application.  If it was
just a web server, it wouldn't be having these problems :-).

| In other words, what's the status now? What are the problems that 
| prevent it from being back online? And lastly,  is there any remote 
| estimate as to when it will be back up?

I don't know anything about the progress that is being made for a
permanent solution.  Clearly some major changes are needed -- either
throwing more hardware at the situation, or significant reworking of
how the software works to handle the current data and usage
effectively with the hardware that is available.


If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that:
   1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
   2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
        such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends
        itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW.
   3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
   4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
        be included on your message
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/            jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: