RFB on 2.0 + linux - semaphore primitive failed

> Maybe this is related to #maxExternalSemaphores: ?
>
> Did you try sending a large number?  For my seaside images where I have
> RFB I do:
>
> Smalltalk vm maxExternalSemaphoresSilently: 65535.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi -
>
>             In Pharo2 do I need to stop and start the RFB server?  I 've
>     been
>     getting a
>
>     primitive #signal in Semaphore failed
>
>     error after the image starts.  I'm using this version of RFB
>
>     RFB-MarianoMartinezPeck.41
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Paul
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>> us to fix magically things.
>>
>> Stef
>
>
> Hi Stef,
>
> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>
>
> RFBServer start
> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>
>
> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.

>
>
>
>
> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
> reported here:
>
> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>
> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>
> I have not gotten the impression that that fix will be backported, and
> even if it will it hasn't been yet so because of that and the RFB issue
> above I can't use Pharo 2 right now.

>
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>>> us to fix magically things.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
>> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
>> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>>
>>
>> RFBServer start
>> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>>
>>
>> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
>> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.
>
> I will check this (after SUG)

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
>> reported here:
>>
>> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>>
>> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
>> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>>
>> I have not gotten the impression that that fix will be backported, and
>> even if it will it hasn't been yet so because of that and the RFB issue
>> above I can't use Pharo 2 right now.
>
> this is weird, because is the first time I see a report (well, I saw the other thread too) about this.
> and Pharo2 is productive since more than 8 months now (and I have some production stuff on it)... and I never seen it.
> This is likely not for the same reasons as pharo3 leaks (which btw are just partially solved, the leaks are still there).
>
> I would like to have that image to take a look, if possible, because is super-weird.
>
> Esteban
>
> ps: I would also like to know about other cases of this problem.
>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps and thanks for following up
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>

I really do not like RFB… we do not use it at all in the daily development, yet it people

We are in the process of fixing them, but have not fixed all yet. I always thought that we would

>
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>>> us to fix magically things.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
>> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
>> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>>
>>
>> RFBServer start
>> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>>
>>
>> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
>> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.
>>
>>
> I really do not like RFB… we do not use it at all in the daily development, yet it people
> load it for production environments.
>
> For me, the system we use every day should be identical to the production environment,
> else it is very hard to get a stable system.
>
> (We need to make what people get of of using RFB part of the base system: remote browsing
> and debugging).

>> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
>> reported here:
>>
>> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>>
>> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
>> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>>
> We are in the process of fixing them, but have not fixed all yet. I always thought that we would
> back port when we have fixed the problem completely in 3.0
>
> Marcus
>
>

> Hi Stef,
>
> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>
>
> RFBServer start
> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>
>
> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.

>
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>>> us to fix magically things.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
>> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
>> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>>
>>
>> RFBServer start
>> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>>
>>
>> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
>> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.
>>
>>
> I really do not like RFB… we do not use it at all in the daily development, yet it people
> load it for production environments.
>
> For me, the system we use every day should be identical to the production environment,
> else it is very hard to get a stable system.
>
> (We need to make what people get of of using RFB part of the base system: remote browsing
> and debugging).

>
>>
>>
>> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
>> reported here:
>>
>> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>>
>> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
>> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>>
> We are in the process of fixing them, but have not fixed all yet. I always thought that we would
> back port when we have fixed the problem completely in 3.0

>
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>>> us to fix magically things.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
>> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
>> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>>
>>
>> RFBServer start
>> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>>
>>
>> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
>> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.
>
> I will check this (after SUG)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
>> reported here:
>>
>> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>>
>> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
>> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>>
>> I have not gotten the impression that that fix will be backported, and
>> even if it will it hasn't been yet so because of that and the RFB issue
>> above I can't use Pharo 2 right now.
>
> this is weird, because is the first time I see a report (well, I saw the other thread too) about this.
> and Pharo2 is productive since more than 8 months now (and I have some production stuff on it)... and I never seen it.
> This is likely not for the same reasons as pharo3 leaks (which btw are just partially solved, the leaks are still there).
>
> I would like to have that image to take a look, if possible, because is super-weird.
>
>>

>
> On 04 Sep 2013, at 08:57, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>>>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>>>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>>>> us to fix magically things.
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Stef,
>>>
>>> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
>>> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
>>> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>>>
>>>
>>> RFBServer start
>>> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>>>
>>>
>>> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
>>> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.
>>>
>>>
>> I really do not like RFB… we do not use it at all in the daily development, yet it people
>> load it for production environments.
>>
>> For me, the system we use every day should be identical to the production environment,
>> else it is very hard to get a stable system.
>>
>> (We need to make what people get of of using RFB part of the base system: remote browsing
>> and debugging).
>
> I totally agree: the why use RFB part and the remote browsing/debugging replacement part. On the other hand, if people want to use some library, that should be possible.
>
> The problem is this case is (again) that have a user (no offence Paul) of some external library that says 'I take a stock image + a library and it does not work in some specific case: pharo people help me please' while the maintainer of RFB is nowhere to be seen or heard of, let alone that he would be willing to take responsibility for how his/her software runs on recent Pharo image/vm/platform combinations - it _is_ a lot of work to maintain open source software.
>
> I looked a little bit at the RFB code: it is pretty OK AFAIKT, but it does hackery stuff with networking. And Paul's problem only occurs if you save an image with RFB connections open on Linux on a specific VM. It will require dedication to debug this..
>

> Sven
>
>>> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
>>> reported here:
>>>
>>> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>>>
>>> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
>>> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>>>
>> We are in the process of fixing them, but have not fixed all yet. I always thought that we would
>> back port when we have fixed the problem completely in 3.0
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>
>

>
> Am 04.09.2013 um 09:14 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]>:
>
>>
>> On 04 Sep 2013, at 08:57, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/03/2013 12:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>> If you do not give us more information we will never be able to fix it.
>>>>> And may be 3.0 will still have the problem and you will start using system that is 3 year old.
>>>>> I can understand that you get in a situation where you cannot do otherwise but do not expect
>>>>> us to fix magically things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stef
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stef,
>>>>
>>>> For reporting the RFB issue I made a thread
>>>> (http://forum.world.st/How-do-diagnose-image-locks-up-cpu-100-on-save-td4704639.html)
>>>> and uploaded a Pharo 2 image to dropbox where if you execute this code:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RFBServer start
>>>> Smalltalk snapshot: true andQuit: false
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The image locks up using the 'pharo' VM and works fine using eliots vm.
>>>> The uploaded image is Pharo-20619 with only RFB loaded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I really do not like RFB… we do not use it at all in the daily development, yet it people
>>> load it for production environments.
>>>
>>> For me, the system we use every day should be identical to the production environment,
>>> else it is very hard to get a stable system.
>>>
>>> (We need to make what people get of of using RFB part of the base system: remote browsing
>>> and debugging).
>>
>> I totally agree: the why use RFB part and the remote browsing/debugging replacement part. On the other hand, if people want to use some library, that should be possible.
>>
>> The problem is this case is (again) that have a user (no offence Paul) of some external library that says 'I take a stock image + a library and it does not work in some specific case: pharo people help me please' while the maintainer of RFB is nowhere to be seen or heard of, let alone that he would be willing to take responsibility for how his/her software runs on recent Pharo image/vm/platform combinations - it _is_ a lot of work to maintain open source software.
>>
>> I looked a little bit at the RFB code: it is pretty OK AFAIKT, but it does hackery stuff with networking. And Paul's problem only occurs if you save an image with RFB connections open on Linux on a specific VM. It will require dedication to debug this..
>>
> I agree what you said in general. But my gut tells me that it isn't RFBs fault triggering the problem. I had the scenario "save image with open RFB connection" in mind. If you have a linux server and debugging stuff this is just the case you use. I did examine that. I started the image with a script that 1 minute later did save and quit. So there was an open RFB server socket listening but no connect. Doing a http request that triggers a database lookup (zinc and dbxtalk)  within that minute the image goes into 100% CPU usage on reopening.
>
> So I wouldn't be so sure it is RFB.

> Norbert
>
>> Sven
>>
>>>> The other problem I had with Pharo 2 is the ever growing image size I
>>>> reported here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.world.st/development-image-memory-use-180MB-in-Pharo-2-vs-40MB-in-Pharo-1-4-tp4699207.html
>>>>
>>>> I understand this is due to some leaks involving morphs and announcers
>>>> and things that are fixed in pharo 3 but not pharo 2.
>>>>
>>> We are in the process of fixing them, but have not fixed all yet. I always thought that we would
>>> back port when we have fixed the problem completely in 3.0
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>