[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] archzoom

From: Sylvain Beucler
Subject: [Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] archzoom
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:03:55 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)


I tried setting up ArchZoom and it was pretty easy indeed (especially
with the Debian Etch package) :)

I activated the revlib, we'll see how it goes. Currently we have
enough free space at Savannah to test it out.


On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 11:41:27PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Hi,
> I remember Michael installed ArchZoom at Savannah and, seeing the
> comment at Gna, we decided not to load the (at that time) much-loaded
> Savannah some more.
> Since then, we performed a bit of restructuration which improved the
> load. Moreover, there aren't that many Arch archives right now
> (compared to CVS), so this would worth a try.
> Would you be interested in setting up ArchZoom at Savannah? Or for a
> start, do you have some advice on what I should look at? :)
> By the way, I also have a friend who disabled Arch at his website
> ( - because ArchZoom would apparently
> consume too much /tmp space for its own good. Does that ring a bell?
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Sylvain
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:40:36PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > [I was offline for a long time, so the late answer.]
> > 
> > It does not seem the "bad performance of archzoom" issue is presented
> > correctly. I can't say whether the Savannah administrator ever enabled
> > archzoom. As for, the issue looks pretty simple. The
> > administrator decided he has no many servers and wants to dedicate his
> > single server to subversion browsers and not to arch.
> > 
> > Here is some info that may help. The default archzoom configuration is
> > conservative in that it does not try to write things to a user's disk.
> > This is good for a demo installation, but requires tuning for production.
> > The ArchZoom FAQ explains how to trivially define revision library that
> > may cause tla to be drastically faster. It also explains how to keep the
> > size of this revision library constant using "axp revlib prune --params".
> > 
> > Another related problem is that many developers have unresponsively huge
> > branches of thousands of revisions without a single cacherev, that makes
> > certain tla operations totally stuck when working on these branches. A
> > policy of automatic creation a cacherev every 50 revisions partially
> > solves this problem.
> > 
> > By default, archzoom forbids search engines to crawl its pages, but some
> > web server misconfiguration or misbehaved robots may cause some unwanted
> > bombing too. To solve this problem archzoom has a number of configuration
> > options, for example it may limit the number of its instances. Problems
> > like these described in the last 3 paragraphs are the real issue and it
> > has nothing to do with archzoom.
> > 
> > As a side note, certain tla operations (see threads about "tla abrowse",
> > for example) are needlessly unoptimal, and may be improved noticeably.
> > Many tla commands miss a limit, as others mentioned.
> > 
> > I think the perl layer has a quite little overhead that is minor compared
> > to the real problems related to tla and a web server. I don't really see
> > "tla librification" essential, as long as tla behaves like a good library
> > (and it is pretty close to it); fork+system is cheap on unix.
> > 
> > As for the idea of making tla to behave more in a daemon manner, I am a
> > bit skeptical about this, but I should see more info to form any opnion.
> > ArchZoom implements some of this stuff, it has own mechanism of caching
> > many of the views for several hours, so that tla is not called. I think
> > it may also work under mod_perl if one wants this, however the standard
> > CGI mode together with limiting the number of archzoom instances may work
> > as well.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Mikhael.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]