savannah trailing sources?

[Andreas Jaeger]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@alum.bu.edu> writes:

> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 08:05:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>Christopher Faylor <cgf@alum.bu.edu> writes:
>>>This really isn't an overseers issue.  We don't control Savannah.
>>
>>But you control sourceware, and rsync access is broken since the move.
>
> There have been plenty of accesses to rsync on the system since the
> move.  In fact, I checked rsync when the system first came back up.
>
>>And ssh access is also broken.
>
> That's not broken either.  There have been plenty of ssh logins.  I logged
> in shortly after the system came up.
>
> There is a problem with slow propagation of the new IP address, of
> course.  That's not a problem with specific services on the system,
> though.
>
> Also, the system itself has been inexplicably flaky since the move.
> It's been going up and down.  The theory is that it's the aacraid driver
> but why this is suddenly a problem after a system move hasn't been
> explained.

The machine now has additional RAM.  This could be a bug with high
memory support, e.g. usage of wrong interfaces in the aacraid driver.
Or the new memory is broken.  I suggest to downgrade to 2GB and see
whether that helps,

Andreas
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAn0WwOJpWPMJyoSYRAnPfAKCRJH6gAdQSPHAnuoLtXoEmcAUTEgCdFNdb
5+ZlHAjQs+Xy9gT2DSQdyoE=
=SMfF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----From dk@artimi.com Mon May 10 13:59:00 2004
From: "Dave Korn" <dk@artimi.com>
To: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: <overseers@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: savannah trailing sources?
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:59:00 -0000
Message-id: <NUTMEGAOeIiGXix4A2D00000048@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405092211350.31796-100000@ops2.one-point.com>
X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00470.html
Content-length: 2646

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Jeff Sturm
> Sent: 10 May 2004 03:18
> To: Christopher Faylor
> Cc: overseers ; gcc 
> Subject: Re: savannah trailing sources?
> 
> On Sun, 9 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > There is a problem with slow propagation of the new IP address, of
> > course.  That's not a problem with specific services on the system,
> > though.
> 
> Of course a long TTL exacerbates the problem.
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> gcc.gnu.org.            86400   IN      A       12.107.209.250
> 
> But, I'm guessing this isn't under your control either.  The TTL of
> sources.redhat.com is much more sane.
> 
> Jeff


  Erm, [it's slightly ambiguous from your post whether you're showing an old
stale record still in DNS somewhere or if you're only pointing at the length
of the TTL from the new record on the assumption it was the same in the old
record as it is now] but if that's the old IP address, then the problem is
not one of long TTL, but of the authoritative server not having been
updated, since that's what ns1.gnu.org is still reporting as the A record.

  And if that's the correct new IP address, then the problem isn't dns at
all, but that the machine is down, or there's some very bad routing info out
there, because traceroute to it dies for me at 12.119.93.62, which is
exactly where Kai Henningsen was reporting it to fail two days ago:

  8    26 ms    35 ms    29 ms  core2-pos15-1.ealing.ukcore.bt.net
[194.74.16.15
7]
  9    46 ms    29 ms    27 ms  transit1-pos4-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net
[194.72.9.2
38]
 10    29 ms    29 ms    29 ms  t2c1-p1-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net [166.49.168.13]
 11   104 ms   116 ms   104 ms  t2c1-p5-0.us-ash.eu.bt.net [166.49.164.74]
 12   121 ms   107 ms   107 ms  12.119.141.33
 13   108 ms   110 ms   113 ms  tbr2-p012901.wswdc.ip.att.net
[12.123.217.17]
 14   116 ms   113 ms   113 ms  gar1-p370.rlgnc.ip.att.net [12.122.3.61]
 15   115 ms   113 ms   113 ms  12.119.93.62
 16     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 17     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 18     *        *        *     Request timed out.

  So if anyone out there still is able to access gcc.gnu.org and isn't
having problems, their packets must be going by a different route to ours,
or there must be some selective filtering going on at that AT+T router.  It
would be great if someone who *can* access it would post a traceroute as
well.

  My betting is that there's some bogus routing info out there.  It's been
two days, and I queried the authoritative server.  It's not a DNS thing any
more.


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....