RE: [Box-Admins] Did www.squeak.org crash?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Box-Admins] Did www.squeak.org crash?

Ken Causey-3
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Box-Admins] Did www.squeak.org crash?
> From: Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, September 13, 2013 2:16 pm
> To: Squeak Hosting Support <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "[hidden email] developers list"
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> - Bert -

Something like that.  I tried to simply restart it but that didn't work.
 I've tried restoring a backup from a day ago and that doesn't seem to
be working.  I will continue to try b ackups but at a glance all the
image files look larger than they should be which in the past has not
been a good sign in terms of a working image.  This may require
assistance from someone with knowledge of the image/AIDA.  But I will
report back after I have tried all the backups or it is up again.

Ken

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Box-Admins] Did www.squeak.org crash?

Ken Causey-3
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Box-Admins] Did www.squeak.org crash?
> From: "Ken Causey" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, September 13, 2013 3:45 pm
> To: "Squeak Hosting Support" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email],
> "[hidden email] developers list"
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [Box-Admins] Did www.squeak.org crash?
> > From: Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Fri, September 13, 2013 2:16 pm
> > To: Squeak Hosting Support <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: "[hidden email] developers list"
> > <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> > - Bert -
>
> Something like that.  I tried to simply restart it but that didn't work.
>  I've tried restoring a backup from a day ago and that doesn't seem to
> be working.  I will continue to try b ackups but at a glance all the
> image files look larger than they should be which in the past has not
> been a good sign in terms of a working image.  This may require
> assistance from someone with knowledge of the image/AIDA.  But I will
> report back after I have tried all the backups or it is up again.
>
> Ken

I finally succeeded on the 4th or 5th attempt.  But frankly I am
confused.

-rw-r--r--  1 website website  10085010 Sep 13 09:00
squeaksite-badq.changes
-rw-r--r--  1 website website 100529268 Sep 13 09:00
squeaksite-badq.image

These are copies of the image/changes (i/c for short) that I found
initially when the site was not responding.

-rw-r--r--  1 website website  10085010 Sep 13 09:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.0/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  1 website website 100529268 Sep 13 09:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.0/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

The above are the most recent backup i/c.  I never even tried them since
they appeared to be direct copies of what obviously wasn't working.

-rw-r--r--  1 website website 10081707 Sep 12 17:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.1/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  6 website website 93703960 Aug 13 05:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.1/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

-rw-r--r--  1 website website 10076943 Sep 11 16:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.2/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  6 website website 93703960 Aug 13 05:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.2/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

-rw-r--r--  1 website website 10072081 Sep 10 15:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.3/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  6 website website 93703960 Aug 13 05:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.3/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

-rw-r--r--  1 website website 10067622 Sep  9 15:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.4/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  6 website website 93703960 Aug 13 05:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.4/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

-rw-r--r--  1 website website 10062810 Sep  8 15:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.5/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  6 website website 93703960 Aug 13 05:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.5/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

-rw-r--r--  1 website website 10058287 Sep  7 15:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.6/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.changes
-rw-r--r--  6 website website 93703960 Aug 13 05:00
/var/cache/rsnapshot/daily.6/localhost/home/website/website/squeaksite.image

And above are the other local backups we have, most recent to oldest.  I
tried each of these in turn starting from daily.1.  I waited at least 2+
minutes after restarting the image in each case.  The one where it
finally worked and I stopped is daily.5.  Now I didn't notice this until
after it was working and I looked more closely but the images in
daily.1-daily.6 all have the same size and date, in fact that date is a
month ago.  I don't know how the image save works in the squeak.org
image, perhaps it was intelligent enough to note that there had been no
changes and so there had in fact been no need to save since Aug 13?

Why did the 5th one work?  I don't know.  I don't believe the image has
any external dependencies.  Could it somehow depend on the changes file?
 Any other explanation I can come up with suggests at minimum it is time
to reboot the system as a whole or that we have other more serious
problems.  Everything else seems to be working for now, even
www.squeak.org is working.  I'm just going to leave it alone for the
time being.

Ken

P.S. Note the number 6 in the second column of each of those
daily.1-daily.5 .image backups?  That number indicates the links to the
file data, the number of paths in the directory table that all point to
the same file data.  These 6 files are in fact actually just 6 directory
entries pointing to the same data (they daily.6 one is the 'original').
This is exactly how our backup system (rsnapshot/rsync) is supposed to
work.  If a file has not changed from one backup to the next a hard link
is created to the file rather than copy the file.  This is actually done
using the venerable cp command (see the -l option in the man page or
other documentation).  Anyway the point is that when the each backup
took place, it was rsync's opinion that compared to the previous backup,
the image file was unchanged, in which case it did not copy the file
over the previously created hard link.