[Glass] Loading application time via Gofer or directly via topaz

[Yanni Chiu]

Marten,

Do you remotely connect to your server, where you run the topaz script? And, do you run the topaz script with “nohup”? If your shell session times out, and you did not run topaz with nohup, then topaz will likely get a TERM signal from your shell session timing out.

Yanni

> On Mar 2, 2022, at 12:40 PM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs at gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
> 
> Marten,
> 
> Depending upon how you run your session there should/could be log files that provide more detail about what has happened when the putty session died ... at a minimum if you do a `output push topaz.log` you will have a file on the server that you can look at after the putty session died to help determine what might have happened ...  I would be suspicious that perhaps the linux login is being killed by a linux OOM killer that is activated when you are running critically low on system memory ... I don't have the details at my finger tips, but I think that the oom killer logs the pids of the processes that killed and from the topaz.log you should be able to determine the pid of the topaz session and go from there ...
> 
> Dale
> 
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:18 AM Marten Feldtmann via Glass <glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com <mailto:glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com>> wrote:
> I do no get any error. I connect to the server via putty, start a topaz script, loading the Monticello package ... then it runs for about 15-20 minutes and then the process is gone, but the putty terminal still shows the process - but I assume, that putty has actually lost the connection. The shell process is not available any more. 
> 
> Perhaps I have to look at ssh configuration values, that ssh is terminating the session ... 
> 
> Marten 
> 
>> Yanni Chiu <yanni.code at gmail.com <mailto:yanni.code at gmail.com>> hat am 02.03.2022 17:11 geschrieben:
>> 
>> 
>> What is the error/problem you are getting? I recall there being a problem in that the method source code can get mixed up with the syntax of topaz. The details are fuzzy to me now, but I think the issue was method source that looks like a topaz comment line.
>> 
>> —
>> Yanni Chiu
>> 
>>> On Mar 2, 2022, at 4:10 AM, Marten Feldtmann via Glass <glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com <mailto:glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hey,
>>> 
>>> so I decided to go away from Monticello packages for these very large source code files and switch to pure topaz code - the process does not seem to be reliable when the stuff is getting too large. I had to reinstall Gemstone database and got again the same problems - topaz code is loading much faster and the loading has ever worked ...
>>> 
>>> Marten
>>>> Marten Feldtmann via Glass <glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com <mailto:glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com>> hat am 27.02.2022 18:25 geschrieben:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hey,
>>>> 
>>>> I am currently working with Gemstone/S 3.6.3 and today I had lots of problems, loading large software packages via Gopher - the topaz process (using Gopher) got killed (as it seems) by the operating system when loading the software, no message and the putty session got killed also.
>>>> 
>>>> I am heavily model based working, so the complete domain model, the API model and APIs itselfs, the OpenAPI specification, the documentation are generated in Smalltalk source code. My - by far - largest application produces 18 MByte of source code (topaz-pure code).
>>>> 
>>>> The generator generates topaz source code (18 MB) which is normally loaded once and then (from within Jade) I produce a Monticello package (3.6 MB) and for further work I use these Monticello packages.
>>>> 
>>>> Today I measured the loading time: 6 minutes (topaz) against 24 minutes (monticello) on the same machine - I assume, that a git based solution will not be much better, perhaps even worse ?
>>>> 
>>>> Just for your information purposes ....
>>>> _______________________________________________ Glass mailing list Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com <mailto:Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com> https://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass <https://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Glass mailing list
>>> Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com <mailto:Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com> 
>>> https://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass <https://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass> 
> _______________________________________________
> Glass mailing list
> Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com <mailto:Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com>
> https://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass <https://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/archives/glass/attachments/20220302/a7c88bba/attachment-0001.htm>