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

Bug#529794: apt-cacher-ng fails to deliver package: "E: Method http has died unexpectedly!"



On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:25:00PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote :
> 
> > Log files attached. I also noticed that although apt always seemingly dies when
> > installing libxfixes3, it doesn't die when trying to install this package alone.
> > It however fails when installing a large number of packages.
> 
> Thank you. I found nothing unusual in the log except of one detail: apt
> stopped sending requests after few dozens for no apparent reasons. I do
> not see any connection to the files you mentioned... but I have a
> theory:
> 
> Apt's client sucks and does not send a proper Connection: header,
> neither does it reliably terminate the connection at the end if the
> server doesn't do it by itself. After some trouble with that, I
> implemented a heuristic in recent versions, it looks at the request
> pipeline and assumes that APT is done when all data is delivered and
> there are no more requests in the queue at this moment. BTW, I also
> don't like apt's processing engine, IIRC it's constructed around some
> select-triggered clock instead of controlling the queue by the
> actual data events.
> 
> Anyhow, my assumption is following:
>  - your cache server is pretty fast
>  - your client machine is not so fast or loaded, or maybe the (kernel)
>    task scheduler timings or some other component might introduce weird
>    temporary effects

It's the same machine, I use a local apt-cacher-ng as packages cache for sbuild

>  - for the above reasons, apt fails to send enough requests. The cacher
>    server closes the connection, apt's http client goes nuts and dies.
>    See Bug 465572 for similar symptoms.
> 
> Possible workaround: set the maximum size of pipeline to something
> insane, i.e. -o Acquire::http::Pipeline-Depth=12345
> 

That does seem to work, thank you very much

Regards,
-- 
Albin Tonnerre

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: