Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Legacy Interface Discussion (2004-2011) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (2897)	12/10/2004 6:29:18 PM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

Thanks. Sounds like a bug to me, although if you wouldn't mind testing that scenario just one more time?.... All the stray/unstoppable jobs the db server was doing finally timed out and utilization on it is at a more normal 2%. Although, if you got your error messages immediately upon trying to submit your edits, don't bother retesting. It's not a timeout. It's a hard error. And a head-scratcher. One thing I was very careful about in this version of SI was to make sure I wrote everything in such a way that it could be run on multiple webservers and would work correctly even if your bounced around between servers. iHub is not written that way and if it ever needs an additional webserver, it'll have to be very substantially rewritten, or will finally require putting to work the expensive load balancer I bought for it that's just gathering dust currently. And the key thing in writing it so that users could be bounced around randomly on multiple servers is the avoidance of session variables. There are none. Variables exist only in the context of the page you're viewing. All necessary variables (your userid, for example) are repopulated at the beginning of every page. And very little is stored in cookies. What browser are you using? I need to go ahead and test this in the development environment, which throws useful error messages.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (2897)	12/10/2004 6:42:03 PM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

Okay, this was a Homer Simpson moment. The bug you reported is fixed. However, the bug you reported should've been happening in any edit scenario. I'm very puzzled as to why it wasn't. I'm sure I've done edits today and had no problems with them. One of the changes I made last night was to narrow the message title field in the search tables to 40 characters, since that's all I'm displaying. Though I had "Change-tracking" disabled for all but the current year's search table, the structure change and the change to an unrelated (in the full-text search context) field triggered a complete rebuild of the catalogs for each of those tables, resulting in the CPU spending last night and most of today pretty swamped. Anyway, I fixed the message-posting routine this morning so it'd just put the first 40 characters of the message title field into the search table. I forgot to do so for the message-update routine. So what was happening was it was trying to stuff 80 characters into a 40-character field. Doh!!!