|
Re: Say, are the Gates busted?
by marto (Cardinal) on Jul 31, 2013 at 13:07 UTC
|
Currently 2 posts from today are there, and several from yesterday. This could be another one of those things that only seems to happen to you.
| [reply] |
Re: Say, are the Gates busted?
by ww (Archbishop) on Jul 31, 2013 at 13:11 UTC
|
Lots of stuff, from today, 7/31, going back in time.
...perhaps you need to clear your cache (or your ISP's).
If I've misconstrued your question or the logic needed to answer it, I offer my apologies to all those electrons which were inconvenienced by the creation of this post.
| [reply] |
Re: Say, are the Gates busted? (on 216.92.34.251 )
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 01, 2013 at 08:53 UTC
|
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:43:37 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.25
Last-Modified: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:27:02 GMT
Etag: "c631-4e13e069cbd80"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 50737
Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: text/html
fresh HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:47:53 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.25
Last-Modified: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:45:05 GMT
ETag: "bcf9-4e2dedbcb6640"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 48377
Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: text/html | [reply] |
|
|
Same here, wget resolves to 209.
| [reply] |
|
|
Same here, I think. I believe that there is a server out there that is somehow delivering stale content, and only for certain pages.
It would, sigh, be rather nice if what was always intended to be a serious apparent-bug report could just be taken at face-value, no matter if it happened to be me who reported it . . . is that really too much to ask?
| [reply] |
|
|
is that really too much to ask? Yes. You have very little credibility, and you won't do basic debugging
OTOH, that a human has to check that all mirrors are synchronized and current, is dumb
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
Re: Say, are the Gates busted?
by Neighbour (Friar) on Aug 01, 2013 at 08:25 UTC
|
I'm not sure what is supposed to be there, but The Monastery Gates is empty (besides a donations link and a vote button) when visited from ff22.0 (and logged in), but is not empty when visited with IE8 or Chrome28 (and not logged in).
Logging in in Chrome and going to The Monastery Gates gives me the same blank page as in ff.
Hope this helps. | [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Say, are the Gates busted?
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Aug 01, 2013 at 00:47 UTC
|
So, what, do I have a fan club?
No, in all seriousness, this is quite peculiar and I could use a little real-help here, please: when I look at the Gates, I see posts from July 10th (top is “CPAN Modules” then “Efficient matching ...”) and nothing sooner. This is true for any browser that I use, with caches completely cleared. Furthermore, the same thing happened while I was on the road last week, i.e. a completely different ISP! However, no other page on the site is stale. What sort of thing might cause this behavior? Cache is empty, no proxies ... no dark vans with blacked-out windows parked outside (yet) ...
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
when I look at the Gates, I see posts from July 10th (top is “CPAN Modules” then “Efficient matching ...”) and nothing sooner Basic debugging checklist item 4 ( Dumper ) For browser maybe that is view+source, or whatver
Other information you could provide is hosts you're using and the ip adresses you get for them (perlmonks.NET ...org ...com www...)
What sort of thing might cause this behavior? Don't get ahead of yourself, step 1, gather evidence, step 2, share evidence
| [reply] |
Re: Say, are the Gates busted?
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Aug 05, 2013 at 12:09 UTC
|
Once again today (8/5), the latest content on Gates (from server 216.92.34.251) is dated 8/3, and all other pages are current. All local caches and routers are known to be reset ... this information is coming down the wire, and it is stale.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Is someone, let alone “cowering behind the veil of Anoymous Monk,” trying intentionally to provoke me? ... Over something that, reality-check here, could easily be as inconsequential as memcached?
If so, then let this be proof-positive of why I don’t give a damm about “reputation points” or “XP.” Both of them are utterly useless to me, and this is exactly why. Something is “being taken personally” here, that is nothing but ones-and-zeros technical. There is a problem here, and I am merely doing the courtesy of calling proper attention to it.
Here is what I have, so far, observed: - When I visit the URL, just its home-page, there is large-but-not-100% chance that the information presented on this page will be stale.
- I am reasonably 100%-certain that this is not a client-side issue ... I know where to look for caches, and have studiously eliminated them. I see this behavior on multiple computers and from multiple IPs.
- I do not see it every time. I have visited about 4 times today, and twice it was current, twice it was stale. Right now ... oops! ... I started to say, “it is current,” but on latest-refresh, in a single uninterrupted browser-session, it is now stale.
- No other page on the site exhibits this behavior. (However, of course, no other page is “the home page,” and is therefore less-likely to be cached.)
I have never before had the experience of, when timely calling the attention of the owners of a web-site to an apparent (and recently-surfaced ...) technical problem on their web-site, been personally castigated nor made fun of ... by anyone. I have been using this web-site (software) for nigh on six years, so, if I say that I am (recently) observing stale-page behavior on it, may I therefore most cordially request that the bug-report be taken at face value?
and, if not ...
| [reply] |
|
|
Is someone, let alone “cowering behind the veil of Anoymous Monk,” trying intentionally to provoke me? Why are you responding to your own node yet again? What will you do if provoked?
Why is it that every time you have something technical report, you omit the technical details?
There is a problem here Yes, you keep reporting the same thing without any answer from the management and you keep not providing details
1) you've reported it already, great, now hurry up and wait
2) stop talking to yourself, and hurry up and wait
3) stop trolling, you're not important
| [reply] |
|
|
During the course of today, I noticed the stale-page problem off and on about three times. I presume that there is a load-balancer in play here on these “beefy servers,” and I strongly suspect that there is something amiss specifically when serving-up a GET-parameter-free (i.e. “home”) URL on probably-one, but not all, of those servers. I am only accessing the .org domain. I have never noticed staleness on any other page, ever. And at this point, I know it is not client-side.
| [reply] |
|
|
