Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

Squeak and Seaside Stability

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

28 messages Options

Philippe Marschall

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

2006/12/19, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
> Philippe Marschall wrote:
> > You don't happen to have the Windows "firewall" on, do you?
>
> I don't, but have you seen problem when Windows firewall was turned on?

No, I just wanted to make sure it's none of the "simple" problems.

Philippe

Andreas.Raab

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5

Ramon, Jon -

This is really confusing. Just to make sure we're measuring the same
things (and not some random numbers that have no relation to reality ;-)
let's make sure we're measuring the same thing. When I was running the
test I used the windows task manager which, under the performance tab,
displays the the number of total handles, threads, processes, memory etc.

When running the test I saw no relevant change in either handles,
threads, memory, or commit charge. Did you use the same mechanism or did
you use something else? If you didn't use the windows task manager, what
did you use? And what does windows task manager report? If you see a
change can you send me the before/after values when running our little
"benchmark"?

Thanks,
- Andreas

Ramon Leon-4

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

> Ramon, Jon -
>
> This is really confusing. Just to make sure we're measuring the same
> things (and not some random numbers that have no relation to reality ;-)
> let's make sure we're measuring the same thing. When I was running the
> test I used the windows task manager which, under the performance tab,
> displays the the number of total handles, threads, processes, memory etc.
>
> When running the test I saw no relevant change in either handles,
> threads, memory, or commit charge. Did you use the same mechanism or did
> you use something else? If you didn't use the windows task manager, what
> did you use? And what does windows task manager report? If you see a
> change can you send me the before/after values when running our little
> "benchmark"?
>
> Thanks,
> - Andreas

Actually, that works as well, but I was using the process tab, after
choosing view/select columns and adding handles and threads to the
display. This lets me see that it's Squeak eating those handles.

However, on my machine, now at home, totally different box, but also
Windows XP Pro, same behavior, each time I call NetNameResolver
localHostName, the handle count goes up by 1 on the Squeak process.
Calling 1000 timesRepeat: [NetNameResolver localHostName] naturally
kicks it up by exactly 1000, quite reliably.

If you have more tests, send em, I'll run em, if you want my image,
here's my image, VM, and all
http://onsmalltalk.com/downloads/DevImage.zip, anything I can do to
assist, let me know, this has been a pain in my but for weeks already,
I'm just glad I found out what was causing my image to crash.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

Andreas.Raab

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

Ramon Leon wrote:
> Actually, that works as well, but I was using the process tab, after
> choosing view/select columns and adding handles and threads to the
> display. This lets me see that it's Squeak eating those handles.

Ah, thanks. I didn't even know about that ;-) And after turning it on, I
can see it, too - and I'm not sure what I saw before because what
happened reminded me of the handle leak that used to be in sockets and
sure enough, the lookup code has the same problem (a missing
CloseHandle() call for the thread created).

Well, the good news is that I understand the problem and know how to fix
it. The bad news is that I currently have no definitive VMMaker version
against which to compile - I might do a cheap respin of 3.7 (e.g., a
3.7.2) with *just* that fix included. Would this helpful for you?

Cheers,
- Andreas

timrowledge

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

On 19-Dec-06, at 9:42 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

>
> Well, the good news is that I understand the problem and know how
> to fix it. The bad news is that I currently have no definitive
> VMMaker version against which to compile - I might do a cheap
> respin of 3.7 (e.g., a 3.7.2) with *just* that fix included. Would
> this helpful for you?

Is there any reason not to use 3.8b6? I don't recall any changes that
make it not a good candidate but I haven't had time available to even
think about it in 12 months.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hands....

Ramon Leon-4

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab

Andreas Raab wrote:

> Ramon Leon wrote:
>
>> Actually, that works as well, but I was using the process tab, after
>> choosing view/select columns and adding handles and threads to the
>> display. This lets me see that it's Squeak eating those handles.
>
>
> Ah, thanks. I didn't even know about that ;-) And after turning it on, I
> can see it, too - and I'm not sure what I saw before because what
> happened reminded me of the handle leak that used to be in sockets and
> sure enough, the lookup code has the same problem (a missing
> CloseHandle() call for the thread created).
>
> Well, the good news is that I understand the problem and know how to fix
> it. The bad news is that I currently have no definitive VMMaker version
> against which to compile - I might do a cheap respin of 3.7 (e.g., a
> 3.7.2) with *just* that fix included. Would this helpful for you?
>
> Cheers,
> - Andreas

Honestly, I don't even need it, I was just using the machine name in
some debug statements for separating the machine in the web farm, I just
started printing the IP address instead, it doesn't leak, and works just
as well. But thanks for the offer.

keith1y

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

> Honestly, I don't even need it, I was just using the machine name in
> some debug statements for separating the machine in the web farm, I
> just started printing the IP address instead, it doesn't leak, and
> works just as well. But thanks for the offer.
>
Is there a good reason why this value should not be cached on startUp?

Keith
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Ramon Leon-4

Re: Squeak and Seaside Stability

>> Honestly, I don't even need it, I was just using the machine name in
>> some debug statements for separating the machine in the web farm, I
>> just started printing the IP address instead, it doesn't leak, and
>> works just as well. But thanks for the offer.
>>
> Is there a good reason why this value should not be cached on startUp?
>
> Keith
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Had I known it leaked, certainly, I would have, but like I said, I don't
even need it, it's already been removed.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com