From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS14618 54.86.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.javad.com (mail.javad.com [54.86.164.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE95D1FAE2 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from osv (unknown [89.175.180.246]) by mail.javad.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 198313E8AB; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:06:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=javad.com; s=default; t=1520417190; bh=JVmfJdd2XlAxCppMuF2LvMLluX/PetlcRH3IEcHAQyE=; l=3188; h=Received:From:To:Subject; b=WWbJkgsyJ3BX32KFWlrvJfsyPOmCnc6dRc19eVzBiIkb9Dt1DgMPjyJaDL0pI2RCy +OlBhctri68tg9i6w5wS2GEmOeN2sDojVpCxUk6bJ7G95Mz6JefAh1qam76Z1JVCu4 U8KXaZvU5TJNLI/PVzP6y7PAiJW7zWoqf+Fb2mlw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=javad.com; s=default; t=1520417190; bh=JVmfJdd2XlAxCppMuF2LvMLluX/PetlcRH3IEcHAQyE=; l=3188; h=Received:From:To:Subject; b=WWbJkgsyJ3BX32KFWlrvJfsyPOmCnc6dRc19eVzBiIkb9Dt1DgMPjyJaDL0pI2RCy +OlBhctri68tg9i6w5wS2GEmOeN2sDojVpCxUk6bJ7G95Mz6JefAh1qam76Z1JVCu4 U8KXaZvU5TJNLI/PVzP6y7PAiJW7zWoqf+Fb2mlw= Authentication-Results: mail.javad.com; spf=pass (sender IP is 89.175.180.246) smtp.mailfrom=osv@javad.com smtp.helo=osv Received-SPF: pass (mail.javad.com: connection is authenticated) Received: from osv by osv with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1etVxs-0000pD-EJ; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 13:06:28 +0300 From: Sergey Organov To: Eric Wong Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: inbox.comp.version-control.git just stopped working References: <8760684f31.fsf@javad.com> <20180307093754.GA27748@dcvr> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 13:06:28 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20180307093754.GA27748@dcvr> (Eric Wong's message of "Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:37:54 +0000") Message-ID: <87zi3k19p7.fsf@javad.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Quickly: still doesn't work :-( Eric Wong writes: > Sergey Organov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm using inbox.comp.version-control.git for a few days now, and it >> worked fine till now. I'm using Gnus from within Emacs to access it >> via NNTP. >> >> Just a few minutes ago, however, attempts to enter the >> inbox.comp.version-control.git from Gnus started to give "Server >> closed connection" error, even though some other groups on >> public-inbox still work fine. > > Uh oh, did you notice any delay in how long it took for you to see > this message from when Gnus started connecting? It's about 4 seconds after Gnus successfully opens connection. > > I'm not familiar with Gnus or Emacs at all, but is there a way you can > show me a protocol dump? I dunno how to do it right now, but I'll try to figure out. Maybe using tcpdump is the simplest... > >> The only difference I see is that inbox.comp.version-control.git has >> much more messages than most of the other groups on the >> public-inbox... wait... >> >> Here are 3 fattest groups, and none of them I can visit from Gnus: >> >> 438320: inbox.comp.lang.ruby.core >> 438320: inbox.comp.lang.ruby.dev > > Eeek, I noticed 438320 was introduced via ruby-talk; so maybe I have a > bug in that causing messages to leak into the other Ruby lists I > follow :x Trying to open those groups didn't work somewhat differently, but now it does, I think due to lesser number of messages: 85962: inbox.comp.lang.ruby.core 85958: inbox.comp.lang.ruby.dev > >> 341199: inbox.comp.version-control.git > > OK, 341199 looks reasonable. > >> To check if it's Gnus problem, I've just visited: >> >> 1523921: gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general >> >> and it works fine. >> >> Any idea what's wrong between Gnus and public-inbox for large groups? > > Not sure, I haven't made any changes to the code running on > "public-inbox.org" in a few weeks, now. I think it's there for a long time, and only showed itself once a group gets big enough. > I suspect there's a fairness problem in the NNTP server in how it > handles XOVER and that might cause timeouts in clients. > > Fwiw, I might not be online much the next few days. No problem, thanks for looking at it! Eric Wong writes: > Eric Wong wrote: >> Sergey Organov wrote: >> > Any idea what's wrong between Gnus and public-inbox for large groups? >> >> Not sure, I haven't made any changes to the code running on >> "public-inbox.org" in a few weeks, now. I suspect there's a >> fairness problem in the NNTP server in how it handles XOVER >> and that might cause timeouts in clients. > > I just deployed this RFC on news.public-inbox.org and hope it > improves things: > > https://public-inbox.org/meta/20180307095222.18699-1-e@80x24.org/raw > >> Fwiw, I might not be online much the next few days. > > Lets hope we get to the bottom of this quickly :> That doesn't seem to be it, as it's still doesn't work, the same way as before. I'll get back with protocol dump collected... Thanks! -- Sergey