[OT] re - Webcat run amuk

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2002

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 44533
interpreted = N
texte = The secret to the PC's success on the speed test was me adding a zero ontothe for loop index's in the code.[showif [os]=mac] [text]loop_counter=[math]counter*10[/math][/text][/showif]shhh - don't tell Alain.;-)Anyway - I may take a beating for admitting this but i'm running win98.I started with Windows XP then moved to Windows 2000 Pro then down again toWin98 and i'll tell you what, its a beautiful thing. I don't understand whatmicrosoft had to put into XP to make it run soo slow. Win98 boots in about 4seconds and doesn't crash with my hardware configuration (same computer asat work). I can run fat32 and its compatitabile with all my apps and err...games. I don't miss any of the features I had in XP or 2000 and the onlyreal noticeable difference is the windows gray is slighly more gray in win98than in the newer revisions. Things i don't like about the new operatingsystems is the forced multi user environment, all the friendly mac typeidea and hide all the important settings shit and all the neccessary evilswith registration and activation of the latest microsoft products.Surely some days you guys must feel the same way about OS 9.2 -> OS X.yeah i know - blah blah blah - doesn't know what he's talking about... blahblah blah.must be bed time.----- Original Message -----From: Aaron Lynch To: WebCatalog Talk Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:04 PMSubject: Re: Webcat run amuk> On 10/29/02 10:47 PM, Andrew Simpson mashed the following keys :>> > Andrew enters from stage left, yells Buy a PC ... exits hurriedly.> >>> Hehe> No comment, our xserve did seriously worse on the speed test with Jaguar> than it did before (but considering that now it's under load and having> problems at the moment I didn't consider it a definitive speed test :)>>> > on a more serious not however...> >> > We did have this problem when we simulated intence traffic on a page with a> > search that would normally take 35-40/60's.> >> > If we hit it 16-20 times before the page completed and had 16-20 spawned> > processes runing, the cpu would slowly creep up and hit the big 197%.Once> > webcat gets like this i think it has a hard time over coming it and the> > search results never get returned.>> Funny thing is, when it's running at 190%, it's really hardly noticeable> from a user perspective. Sites still seem to be served. The machineseems> plenty quick. I usually just see the Xserve's proc indicator going nutso.> (AHAH! See there is a case for look of the pretty blinky lights on an> Xserve!!) oh, and BTW Andrew, a fast woman is nice and all, but I'd takea> hot lookin' moderately quick woman I that I can get along with one over an> ugly shrieking skank (XP!??) any day :)>> I guess I'm just shallow that way ;>>> >> > I think we have generally found that the engine is clever enough torestart> > itself on bad code but not on good code underload.> >> > Maybe you have a few new searches somewhere that are getting a bit of> > traffic and take a while to complete - or you could have a search on an> > include that includes itself.... been there, done that.> >> > all in all thou it becomes hard to track down the error because aswebcat> > gets crazy - soo do the debug logs.> >> > I think we had this argument a while back when i said code shouldn't beable> > to bring down the server and i was told i was wrong - apparently itshould.>>> Yeah, I would generally agree with you that it shouldn't. I can see howyou> could write perfectly legitimate webDNA with an infinite loop that would> consume it, but in general I think that very few things should.>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to> Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

[OT] re - Webcat run amuk (Andrew Simpson 2002)

The secret to the PC's success on the speed test was me adding a zero ontothe for loop index's in the code.[showif [os]=mac] [text]loop_counter=[math]counter*10[/math][/text][/showif]shhh - don't tell Alain.;-)Anyway - I may take a beating for admitting this but i'm running win98.I started with Windows XP then moved to Windows 2000 Pro then down again toWin98 and i'll tell you what, its a beautiful thing. I don't understand whatmicrosoft had to put into XP to make it run soo slow. Win98 boots in about 4seconds and doesn't crash with my hardware configuration (same computer asat work). I can run fat32 and its compatitabile with all my apps and err...games. I don't miss any of the features I had in XP or 2000 and the onlyreal noticeable difference is the windows gray is slighly more gray in win98than in the newer revisions. Things i don't like about the new operatingsystems is the forced multi user environment, all the friendly mac typeidea and hide all the important settings shit and all the neccessary evilswith registration and activation of the latest microsoft products.Surely some days you guys must feel the same way about OS 9.2 -> OS X.yeah i know - blah blah blah - doesn't know what he's talking about... blahblah blah.must be bed time.----- Original Message -----From: Aaron Lynch To: WebCatalog Talk Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:04 PMSubject: Re: Webcat run amuk> On 10/29/02 10:47 PM, Andrew Simpson mashed the following keys :>> > Andrew enters from stage left, yells Buy a PC ... exits hurriedly.> >>> Hehe> No comment, our xserve did seriously worse on the speed test with Jaguar> than it did before (but considering that now it's under load and having> problems at the moment I didn't consider it a definitive speed test :)>>> > on a more serious not however...> >> > We did have this problem when we simulated intence traffic on a page with a> > search that would normally take 35-40/60's.> >> > If we hit it 16-20 times before the page completed and had 16-20 spawned> > processes runing, the cpu would slowly creep up and hit the big 197%.Once> > webcat gets like this i think it has a hard time over coming it and the> > search results never get returned.>> Funny thing is, when it's running at 190%, it's really hardly noticeable> from a user perspective. Sites still seem to be served. The machineseems> plenty quick. I usually just see the Xserve's proc indicator going nutso.> (AHAH! See there is a case for look of the pretty blinky lights on an> Xserve!!) oh, and BTW Andrew, a fast woman is nice and all, but I'd takea> hot lookin' moderately quick woman I that I can get along with one over an> ugly shrieking skank (XP!??) any day :)>> I guess I'm just shallow that way ;>>> >> > I think we have generally found that the engine is clever enough torestart> > itself on bad code but not on good code underload.> >> > Maybe you have a few new searches somewhere that are getting a bit of> > traffic and take a while to complete - or you could have a search on an> > include that includes itself.... been there, done that.> >> > all in all thou it becomes hard to track down the error because aswebcat> > gets crazy - soo do the debug logs.> >> > I think we had this argument a while back when i said code shouldn't beable> > to bring down the server and i was told i was wrong - apparently itshould.>>> Yeah, I would generally agree with you that it shouldn't. I can see howyou> could write perfectly legitimate webDNA with an infinite loop that would> consume it, but in general I think that very few things should.>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to> Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Andrew Simpson

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

[OT] re - Webcat run amuk

2002

Top Articles:

Related Readings: