On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Paul Lesniewski :
>
>> > Well, I INITIALLY applied the patch during daytime, at the time of
>> > highest load. Maybe that was unwise and caused the runaway condition...
>>
>> So can I infer that the second version was never used during pe
* Paul Lesniewski :
> > Well, I INITIALLY applied the patch during daytime, at the time of
> > highest load. Maybe that was unwise and caused the runaway condition...
>
> So can I infer that the second version was never used during peak
> time? (and also that it has not been peak time yet since
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Paul Lesniewski :
>
>> It may be possible that it's just one particular action or email
>> message content that triggers a problem with this patch - in which
>> case maybe SM gets caught in an endless loop eating all your server
>> memo
* Paul Lesniewski :
> It may be possible that it's just one particular action or email
> message content that triggers a problem with this patch - in which
> case maybe SM gets caught in an endless loop eating all your server
> memory or the likes. You didn't happen to notice a runaway httpd
> th
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Paul Lesniewski :
>
>> And if you're feeling even more adventurous, might I ask you to revert
>> these changes and try the original patch again to be double sure it
>> kills the machine? It's just that this second version shouldn't be
>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>> * Paul Lesniewski :
>>
>>> And if you're feeling even more adventurous, might I ask you to revert
>>> these changes and try the original patch again to be double sure it
>>> ki
* Paul Lesniewski :
> And if you're feeling even more adventurous, might I ask you to revert
> these changes and try the original patch again to be double sure it
> kills the machine? It's just that this second version shouldn't be
> that different than the first
Done. Machine still working.
* Paul Lesniewski :
> > I applied that patch and made the changes you mention above.
> > The machine is working fine (load still 2.46 just like befor applying
> > the patch!), and the patch seems to work.
>
> Thanks. I'm a bit surprised at this, so I would appreciate knowing if
> your load remai
> > SM completely ceased to work.
>
> I don't understand that. You said it seemed to fix the issue.
Yes, it fixed the issue when I tested it, but at the same time it was
driving the load higher and higher up to the point where the whole
machine wouldn't respond to anything.
> SM *works* for me
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>>> If you are willing to sacrifice usability of your machine for another
>>> five minutes, you can try re-applying that patch, then changing the
>>> following lines in functions/
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
>> If you are willing to sacrifice usability of your machine for another
>> five minutes, you can try re-applying that patch, then changing the
>> following lines in functions/mime.php:
>>
>> 1) comment out line 792 so it looks like:
>>
>>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Paul Lesniewski :
>
>> > This patch renders my server inoperable. It drives the load from 2.57
>> > avg. up to 121 (!) in a few minutes.
>>
>> Huh. Obviously more analysis is needed. Are you absolutely sure this
>> was the only thing
> If you are willing to sacrifice usability of your machine for another
> five minutes, you can try re-applying that patch, then changing the
> following lines in functions/mime.php:
>
> 1) comment out line 792 so it looks like:
>
> //case '"':
>
> 2) change line 843 so it looks like
* Paul Lesniewski :
> > This patch renders my server inoperable. It drives the load from 2.57
> > avg. up to 121 (!) in a few minutes.
>
> Huh. Obviously more analysis is needed. Are you absolutely sure this
> was the only thing you changed before the load skyrocketed?
Yes. I applied the patch
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>>> > When I'm retrieving an address from LDAP, then the realname containing an
>>> > Umlaut not being properly quoted.
>>>
>>> Please try the attached patch. I'm not sure yet if
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
>> > When I'm retrieving an address from LDAP, then the realname containing an
>> > Umlaut not being properly quoted.
>>
>> Please try the attached patch. I'm not sure yet if this is a good
>> fix, as it may affect other parts of the softwa
> > When I'm retrieving an address from LDAP, then the realname containing an
> > Umlaut not being properly quoted.
>
> Please try the attached patch. I'm not sure yet if this is a good
> fix, as it may affect other parts of the software. If you are
> interested in helping, you can test this pat
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> When I'm retrieving an address from LDAP, then the realname containing an
> Umlaut not being properly quoted.
Please try the attached patch. I'm not sure yet if this is a good
fix, as it may affect other parts of the software. If you ar
When I'm retrieving an address from LDAP, then the realname containing an
Umlaut not being properly quoted.
I retrieved the message below with "less" from the Sent-folder:
--- snip ---
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:19:26 +0200
Subject: Test michael.roe...@charite.de
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To: =?is
19 matches
Mail list logo
