[chandler-users] osaf.us updated to Cosmo 0.6.0.1

[Andre Mueninghoff]

Good news...the issue I had with long sync durations for shares is not
happening with r13455. Go figure...cosmic rays...
Andre

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:53:51 -0500, "Andre Mueninghoff"
<andre_mueninghoff at fastmail.fm> said:
> Hi Jared,
> 
> Returning from errands I observed the sync of the fourteen collections
> to be incomplete after two hours. I left again before it completed. (Am
> still out.) Seems like a bizzare fringe case. I'm measuring "incomplete"
> by having yet to see a new sync item created in the Sharing Activity
> collection, and by seeing the command window continue to scroll through
> sharing "(nnn)"-type messages, and by status bar messages indicating
> collections sync one by one...the usual stuff. No errors, no tracebacks,
> pyton mem usage steady abround 420MB, and python CPU usage at 98-99
> basically continously.
> 
> I checked the bandwidth meter on cnet.com and got 1,700M bps. (I may be
> recalling the units incorrectly, but it was higher than typical cable
> modem speeds according to cnet.) 
> 
> I haven't had a chance to revert to a previous build to see if a new
> check-in might be contributing. Will let you know. 
> 
> Andre
> 
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:14:29 -0800, "Jared Rhine" <jared at wordzoo.com>
> said:
> > Andre Mueninghoff wrote:
> > > Is anyone else noticing extremely long durations to sync shares
> > > between Chandler r13453 (WinXP) and osaf.us?
> > 
> > I did a spot check of the server-recorded times for the initial 
> > PROPFINDs of the OSAF office calendar and one of your collections, 
> > Andre.  This was checked on the 8th (before update) and today (after 
> > update).  The initial PROPFIND during a DAV-based sync operation 
> > dominates the synchronization time.
> > 
> > Initial impressions are that there's pretty wide variance in sync times 
> > (from about 2 seconds to 11 seconds for the office calendar).  It 
> > *might* be higher after the update, if I squint, but now I want to write 
> > a quick statistical analysis to put some numbers behind the question.
> > 
> > If by "extremely long durations", you're implying 2x or more slowly than 
> > previously, the server-recorded numbers don't show anything like that. 
> > It's certainly possible you're seeing network effects, but that's 
> > notoriously difficult to establish.
> > 
> > I'd like to hear any other observations about sync times.  I sync in the 
> > background, so I never would have noticed if the time have actually gone 
> > up.  There's other operations than just the initial PROPFIND reported 
> > above, so there could be additional effects I haven't looked at.
> > 
> > Thanks for the report, Andre.  I'll be heightened to the possibility and 
> > take an additional look at possible causes and some real statistics.
> > 
> > -- Jared
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > chandler-users mailing list
> > chandler-users at osafoundation.org
> > http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users
> _______________________________________________
> chandler-users mailing list
> chandler-users at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users