Answers below...
From the previous code, the cache size is 2568 I thought that was reasonable so I ran this code
and got:
Well, this does not seem to be good, having 2568 sessions and only one expired. Thoughts? Run it again? Larry
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Yes, the one session that expired was the one that we had already
manually expired, so running again should expire the whole lot ..
and if not we'll need to dig deeper.
for some reason it appears that a certain collection of applications did not have the expiration scan run against them at all ... like this one)... the case that was supposed to show up "missing" is the most likely explanation for such a phenomenon, but that was not the case with the WASession that we looked at in detail ... If the second run yields good results, I'd like to try a few more experiments to try to characterize why we had these troubles, but it may not be worth spending too much more time on this (your call) if we have a formula for slashing the size of your repo... Dale On 4/8/15 7:51 AM, Lawrence Kellogg
wrote:
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
So you mean for me to run this again?
log out, and then log in, and run a markForCollection? I ran this code, but the number of sessions printed from the “leaving gemstoneReap” Transcript call is only 10 or 14…most of the time 0, not sure this is going to make a huge difference. The code did not run for long and it looks like it is committing changes. Larry
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Yes.
On 04/08/2015 09:01 AM, Lawrence
Kellogg wrote:
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
I’ve run it a number of times today but keep running out of temporary object memory Will it eventually work because it commits partial results?
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
On 4/8/15 6:49 PM, Lawrence Kellogg
wrote:
Hmmmmmm, Running out of TOC is not a good thing ... running out of TOC and not recording a stack (like I needed the last time this happened) is not a good thing ... Without a stack I don't know where you blew out ... without a complete stack I don't know whether or not you are making any progress at all.... I am also suspicious that running out of memory is the source of some of the object leaks ... I was under the impression that before making and restoring from backup that you had made a "complete" run without running out of TOC. Am I remembering wrong? Today have you had any runs without running out of TOC ... I thought you had made it through one run today without running out of TOC. Am I remembering wrong? I just need a full stack from your last run and we'll see what's happening ... remember the instructions from last time? The gem log should have some stacks that I can look at (pick the last stack in the file) and see if I can figure out what the heck is going on ... Maybe, just maybe we are blowing out of memory because we've gotten to a spot that's never been executed before? Dale _______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Hi guys, I think I might have a similar issue as Lawrence. But it's hard to debug 58 messages ;) I thought this: https://github.com/GsDevKit/Seaside31/issues/68 Should I start by trying this and see if there is a difference? If not, anyway of the involves could have a little executive summary :) hahahahah Now..for real..this is just a heads up saying I may have the same problem and hence more hands to try and find this bug (if it is so)! Cheers, On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Dale Henrichs via Glass <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
LOL. We fought a long and hard battle, and I'm not sure of the outcome, except that my extent is still big, and I just got a another paying gig. Some day, I'll take another shot at it. Best, Larry
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
In reply to this post by GLASS mailing list
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ok, i tried that and no difference :(
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |