Hi Tobias,
Given that we're in agreement, this hostility is unnecessary and puzzling. Lighten up. > >>> I know that it mostly a cost and reconfiguration thing, but has there been any thought to maybe make multiple servers? With the front end doing a round robin to distribute the load? I’m saying this without knowing what kind of loads the server is experiencing, or whether there are log files that record the activity. > >> > >> > >> That's what squeaksource3 on gemstone is doing, actually. > >> Three FCGI-servers (gems) serving the web interface and files, if necessary. > >> also, one extra gem to collect stale seaside sessions and one extra gem to do async things like update statistics and send out emails. Paul mentions a "cost and configuration" trade-off, which you acknowledge you implemented as "Three FCGI servers" (what I refer to as a "dragster") for squeaksource3. But then this... > >> (The Squeak version of that uses Squeak processes for that and is probably not as resilient…) ... made an opportunity to draw a distinction between "resilience" and UX, which is _important_ too! > > And yet, when I just went to: > > > > http://ss3.gemtalksystems.com/ss/Projects > > > > and entered "squeaksour" in the Search field to look for your > > referenced packages, my web browser sat there spinning for AT LEAST 30 > > seconds (felt like more, but I didn't time it) before returning with > > the result list. This is one of the issues I've had with > > squeaksource3 since the beginning. The same first-search on > > squeaksource.com hosted on single-threaded Squeak 3.x image running on > > interpreter VM is more than an order-of-magnitude faster. > > "Oh hey Tobias, you said you made the mc directory listing fast. Look how slow the search on that site is ooooo" > > Really? > > I know that the search on that instance is slow. Then you shouldn't be offended. We're discussing server implementations. > That's one of the several reasons why I/Dale actually want to upgrade the instance to the latest code base. If someone's inclined, we have that all tracked (https://github.com/krono/squeaksource3/issues/, especially https://github.com/krono/squeaksource3/issues/64 and such) > > The directory listing is fast. Like these ones: > http://ss3.gemtalksystems.com/ss/STON/ > https://sdk.krestianstvo.org/sdk/croquet/ > > > > > My point being, I agree that "dragster tech" can be fun, but if the > > extra complexity it brings sinks the UX, it was all only just > > masturbation. The real challenge is not to use nginx, but to actually > > provide a UX that is better-enough to pay for the extra cost and > > complexity. > > > > "dragster tech"? are you kidding? "extra complexity"? Its called divided responsibilities and industry best practices. Right. But you ignored my point about UX. > But you know what? Ask Levente to put map.squeak.org out there on port 80. See how fast it dies. > > Best of luck. You don't have to be so patronizing. You made this point very strongly earlier, and it is something which I was already aware, but not experienced in, so glad to learn from you and Levente about the best tools and practices to have a resilient Squeak-based server app on the net. > The instance with the latest code base is btw: https://sdk.krestianstvo.org/sdk, ss3 at gemtalksystems is arguably the oldest one. > > But still. Still what? Chill out. Regards, Chris > I have no part in this belly dance anymore. > > Good day. > -Tobias > > > *plonk* > > |
Leaving aside the arguments that seem to have sprung up, I'd appreciate thoughts on -
a) would it be better for me to rescind the socket retires I added a couple of weeks ago? b) are there any error cases it *is* worth catching and what handling would be beneficial? tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim You can't make a program without broken egos. |
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, tim Rowledge wrote:
> Leaving aside the arguments that seem to have sprung up, I'd appreciate thoughts on - > a) would it be better for me to rescind the socket retires I added a couple of weeks ago? Based on Chris's explanation about the 504 responses (data serialization), I don't think those would affect the image in any way, since it is not responding during the operation. I think it would be worth to add delays. I usually use exponential backoff with an upper limit (e.g. 10 seconds). > b) are there any error cases it *is* worth catching and what handling would be beneficial? Maybe. 4xx reponses normally mean the client is doing something wrong. 5xx reponses mean there's something wrong with the server. Levente > > tim > -- > tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim > You can't make a program without broken egos. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |