--- Nick Reinking <nick@twoevils.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 01:53:29PM -0600, Lee Daniel
> Crocker wrote:
> > > (Anthere <anthere6@yahoo.com>):
> > >
> > > Say Lee, the last connexion to the french wiki
> was
> > > done at 11:21 am
> > > It was down from 11:21 to about a couple of
> minutes
> > > ago (that is 20:23)
> > > Between these two times (so ... 9 hours...),
> > > absolutely NO connexions were possible
> > > I just checked ...was the same on the en
> apparently
> > >
> > > so....which traffic ? from where ? from who ?
> any idea
> >
> > Well, that's the first time I'd heard that. And
> there's
> > only one server: just because there's no traffic
> on one of
> > the many wikis doesn't mean the server isn't busy
> as hell.
> >
> > The only message I got this morning was "the wiki
> is down".
> > That didn't tell me anything, so I logged on and
> saw that
> > the CPU load was maxed out, and that there were
> hundreds
> > of active connections. Looked like regular traffic
> to me.
I dunno Lee
The wiki has been horribly slow for the past 2 weeks,
and many editors have already gave up editing because
of this
Today, it was just as if wiki didnot existed at all
during 9 hours, which were full day hours
And not only was there no response from the server at
all, but no response on the mailing list either. That
is a bit disturbing I would say.
In short, if 13/14 days it takes about 1 mn to respond
for each page during day time, and the 14th day wiki
doesnot exist at all, well, it won't be long for
anybody to just give up
Besides, I checked on the english wiki, and I saw
there were no edits in the recent changes log for many
hours, so you can hardly say it is no response from
"one of the numerous wiki". This was a general matter.
So, we wonder.
> > It seems to be responding better now after the
> kick, but
> > I'm reluctant to restart the server (which
> involves breaking
> > all active connections) unless I get a more
> specific report
> > than "the wiki is down".
>
> Well, hard to expect much more than that from a user
> who doesn't have a
> login to the server itself. By the way, my guess is
> that some query, or
> perhaps some quirk, had caused MySQL to lock up.
> All of the apache
> processes were likely in a blocked state, waiting
> for MySQL to respond.
> Just because there are lots of processes running,
> doesn't mean they're
> actually responding.
>
> --
> Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 --
> Minneapolis, MN
Nick, did you read that message I forwarded several
hours ago from Ryo ? I was on my old email address
when I did the forward, and the wikitech list refused
it (the weird thing is that I just checked pending
request, and there are none, so I don't know where
that mail actually is:-)). But it got accepted on the
main list.
In short, Ryo reported he made a query around 11 am.
Just after that query, there were no answer from the
server for about 5 mn. Shortly after the server
finally answered, he made another one, and immediately
after he made that query, the server stopped
answering...for about 9 hours
these are the queries he made
select l.cur_title, r.cur_title from cur l inner join
links lnk on binary l.cur_title = binary lnk.l_from
inner join cur r on binary r.cur_title = binary
lnk.l_to where r.cur_text like '%#redirect%'
then simply
select count( * ) from links
could this be an explanation ?
or not ?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com