[chandler-users] osaf.us updated to Cosmo 0.6.0.1
andre_mueninghoff at fastmail.fm
Sat Mar 10 19:38:00 PST 2007
Good news...the issue I had with long sync durations for shares is not
happening with r13455. Go figure...cosmic rays...
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.
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:14:29 -0800, "Jared Rhine" <jared at wordzoo.com>
> > 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
More information about the chandler-users