squeak and vista... primitive failed

Hi all...

I just installed vista (32bits) on my computer.
Squeak seems to work fine exept when I filein a file (like
MCRepositories.st). The primitive that return the size of a file fail...

StandardFileStream>>primSize: id
    "Answer the size of this file."

    <primitive: 'primitiveFileSize' module: 'FilePlugin'>
    self primitiveFailed

Any advices are welcommed ;)

Thanks

Cédrick

I haven't found squeak reliable on Vista, mine locks up every time I try to
extract method.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

more information at the end of this mail (debug stack)

I used the vm on squeak.org and also the 3.9.2 ...
I also added the win32OSProcessPlugin.dll ... stil the same result :(
I tried with 3.9 and 3.10 alpha...
> The primitive that return the size of a file fail...
>
> StandardFileStream>>primSize: id
>    "Answer the size of this file."
>
>    <primitive: 'primitiveFileSize' module: 'FilePlugin'>
>    self primitiveFailed
>
>


29 May 2007 6:35:34 pm

VM: Win32 - a SmalltalkImage
Image: Squeak3.9 [latest update: #7067]

SecurityManager state:
Restricted: false
FileAccess: true
SocketAccess: true
Working Dir C:\Users\cdrick\Desktop\Squeak3.9-7067
Trusted Dir C:\Users\cdrick\Desktop\Squeak3.9-7067\cdrick
Untrusted Dir C:\My Squeak\cdrick

MultiByteFileStream(Object)>>error:
    Receiver: MultiByteFileStream:
'C:\Users\cdrick\Desktop\Squeak3.9-7067\squeak-dev-123.changes'
    Arguments and temporary variables:
        aString:     'a primitive has failed'
    Receiver's instance variables:


MultiByteFileStream(Object)>>primitiveFailed
    Receiver: MultiByteFileStream:
'C:\Users\cdrick\Desktop\Squeak3.9-7067\squeak-dev-123.changes'
    Arguments and temporary variables:

    Receiver's instance variables:


MultiByteFileStream(StandardFileStream)>>primSize:
    Receiver: MultiByteFileStream:
'C:\Users\cdrick\Desktop\Squeak3.9-7067\squeak-dev-123.changes'
    Arguments and temporary variables:
        id:     nil
    Receiver's instance variables:


MultiByteFileStream(StandardFileStream)>>size
    Receiver: MultiByteFileStream:
'C:\Users\cdrick\Desktop\Squeak3.9-7067\squeak-dev-123.changes'
    Arguments and temporary variables:

    Receiver's instance variables:



--- The full stack ---
MultiByteFileStream(Object)>>error:
MultiByteFileStream(Object)>>primitiveFailed
MultiByteFileStream(StandardFileStream)>>primSize:
MultiByteFileStream(StandardFileStream)>>size
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MultiByteFileStream(StandardFileStream)>>setToEnd
SmalltalkImage>>logChange:
SmalltalkImage>>event:

>
> I haven't found squeak reliable on Vista, mine locks up every time I try to
> extract method.
>
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
>
>
>  
uhmm, so I guess I'm back to run linux with virtualbox and then squeak ;)...
Anyway this is sad and quite a show stopper for people triing squeak in
vista....

Hi,
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:33:58 +0200  
I had the same problem when running Squeak on Vista. It turned out that it was due to NOD32 anti-virus checking the changes file when it was written to. Disabling the .CHANGES extension in NOD32 fixed the problem, and now Squeak runs fine.
 
Cheers,
Andy
 
>
> Thanks
>
> Cédrick
>

---

With Live Spaces email straight to your blog. Upload jokes, photos and more. It's free! It's free!

>
>  
> I had the same problem when running Squeak on Vista. It turned out
> that it was due to NOD32 anti-virus checking the changes file when it
> was written to. Disabling the .CHANGES extension in NOD32 fixed the
> problem, and now Squeak runs fine.
>  
>
Cooool.... really coool

This is it... Thanks a lot Andrew, you solved the problem that was
hassling me for weeks... I owe you a beer ;)
I actually had an equivalent problem with XP (slow snapshoting method)
still due to NOD32 ... as it'is the common point between my 2 systems !
So, we need to be aware that NOD32 (AMON-Access scanner) interfere with
the changes files !

Thanks again
Cédrick

And you didn't get a warning about Squeak not being able to open the
changes file? Usually this kind of problem is reported right upon startup.

   - A.

Cédrick Béler wrote:

 

> And you didn't get a warning about Squeak not being able to open the
> changes file? Usually this kind of problem is reported right upon startup.
>

Squeak starts up ok.
It can read the changes file ok.
It can write to the changes file ok.
BUT,
after writing to it, and at some delayed point in the future, NOD32 detects the file change and opens the changes file to scan it.
If, while this scan is happening, another write to the changes file is attempted, then the error occurs.
 
So the error is more likely to occur during a large file-in, than with a small one.
 
Cheers,
Andy
 
 
 

---

With Live Spaces email straight to your blog. Upload jokes, photos and more. It's free! It's free!

Generally, if you have NOD installed, any access to the squeak changes
file is veeeery slow. I personally have a exception defined on my Squeak
directory in Windows to avoid this problem.

Elod

Elod Kironsky a écrit : on xp, it was very slow, especially the "snapshoting method" process in
Monticello for instance but I had no error...
on vista, I was just loading the MCRepositories.st file, which is not
very long. The process starts, and then I randomly get an error...

whereas it seems specific to NOD acces protect mode, it may be good to
have a specific error for this kind of problem...

each time I interrupted (on xp), I saw the write mode of the change set
file set to false if i remember well...

Cédrick

Uninstall this virus guys. use squeak w/o viruses.
IMHO, antiviruses is worser than viruses - they sit in your system and
eat your memory/cpu resources and in 90% of cases unable to do
anything when new virus intruding into your system. Living with
antivirus each day is more pain than being infected with virus once in
year.

On 29/05/07, Elod Kironsky <[hidden email]> wrote:

sig a écrit :
> Uninstall this virus guys. use squeak w/o viruses.
> IMHO, antiviruses is worser than viruses - they sit in your system and
> eat your memory/cpu resources and in 90% of cases unable to do
> anything when new virus intruding into your system. Living with
> antivirus each day is more pain than being infected with virus once in
> year.
yes why not (btw NOD is not NORTON ;) )... but the problem remains. We
cannot convince everybody that is willing to use squeak to uninstall his
anti-virus first ;) ...

Cédrick

"IMHO, antiviruses is worser than viruses - they sit in your system and
eat your memory/cpu resources and in 90% of cases unable to do
anything when new virus intruding into your system. Living with
antivirus each day is more pain than being infected with virus once in
year."

This is true of most antivirus software. I've been using AVG for antivirus on Windows, and it's nicer. On my machine it takes up about 2.3 MB of memory. I'm using the free version. I don't believe it prevents infection like other antivirus software does (though it may scan e-mail--I don't use this feature). This cuts down on the CPU usage, because it's not monitoring my files all the time. It has a scanner that you can run over your hard drive(s), which you can schedule, and it downloads updates automatically. That's it. Every few months it gives me a pop up saying it's "about to expire", and they try to get me to buy the commercial version, but when it does expire I can just download a new, updated free version.

---Mark
[hidden email]

[hidden email] wrote:
> "IMHO, antiviruses is worser than viruses - they sit in your system and
> eat your memory/cpu resources and in 90% of cases unable to do
> anything when new virus intruding into your system. Living with
> antivirus each day is more pain than being infected with virus once in
> year."
>
> This is true of most antivirus software. I've been using AVG for antivirus on Windows, and it's nicer. On my machine it takes up about 2.3 MB of memory. I'm using the free version. I don't believe it prevents infection like other antivirus software does (though it may scan e-mail--I don't use this feature). This cuts down on the CPU usage, because it's not monitoring my files all the time. It has a scanner that you can run over your hard drive(s), which you can schedule, and it downloads updates automatically. That's it. Every few months it gives me a pop up saying it's "about to expire", and they try to get me to buy the commercial version, but when it does expire I can just download a new, updated free version.
>  
I use it too on Windows (I use Linux, mostly, though.) Luckily, I've
never seen the pop-up for renewal but once about a year ago. It works
just great. (Norton Internet Security was just horrible on all my
windows machines. You might watch out for that one.)