Author Topic: Testing build #249  (Read 5612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *
  • Posts: 12949
    • View Profile
Testing build #249
« on: November 20, 2009, 09:40:57 PM »
download @ www.dovedove.it/hfs/hfs249.exe

what's new
+ parameter "var" for {.urlvar.} {.postvar.} {.replace.}
* {.regexp|replace=XXX|var=YYY.} will store result in variable YYY
* text coming from the http request and containing macros will not be just discarded but encoded [link]
- problems appending to [section] of the template, from a diff template [link]
- attempt to fix problems with bad timestamps files [link]

Offline Mars

  • Operator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249 : Twice the same job
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2009, 12:16:25 AM »
function Tmainfrm.getFolderPage(folder:Tfile; conn:ThttpConn; otpl:Tobject):string;
.....
  else
    begin
                     s:=diffTpl.getTxtByExt(ExtractFileExt(f.name));                  <<<-----  say me why  :D
    if s = '' then s:=diffTpl.getTxtByExt(ExtractFileExt(f.name));                  <<<----- 
    if s = '' then s:=fileTpl;
    inc(numberFiles);
    type_:='file';
    end;

It is true that after the corrective hfs will be sharply faster  :D ;D ;)

Offline jerome

  • Occasional poster
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2009, 04:07:42 AM »
5mn to simply access the root,
from the machine where HFS is running.
web users will go anywhere else. ;D

this one is super slow to show the pages, 23s for a only 6 folder page.


Offline maverick

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Computer Solutions
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2009, 04:39:20 AM »
5mn to simply access the root,
from the machine where HFS is running.
web users will go anywhere else. ;D

this one is super slow to show the pages, 23s for a only 6 folder page.

???
I don't have that behavior here.  No slowdown at all comparing it to other builds.  For example it took 0.182 of a second to open my main uncached page (root) and 2.182 secs to open a uncached folder containing 225 files and this is on a slow machine.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 05:06:56 AM by maverick »
maverick

Offline bacter

  • Operator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2009, 07:43:59 AM »
hi jerome
This build is as fast building the pages as previous builds. Your problem seems to be caused by something else than hfs.

Buildtime for pages is normally  less than 1 second (between 0.024 and 2.5 seconds for huge folders with 700 items).
Only building a page with recursive listing of about 16500 items takes  about 40 seconds and creates a html page of  1 MByte - but this is not faster with previous builds.

Check your build times, and compare them with those of the standard template.

your computer has no brain - use your own !

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *
  • Posts: 12949
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2009, 05:57:05 PM »
@mars
it's there since years, and never came in sight :)

@jerome
let us know if you find what's causing the problem.
if you think it's this exact version, you can test previous versions and report the most recent version that has no such problem.

Offline Mars

  • Operator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2009, 08:29:46 PM »
@mars
it's there since years, and never came in sight :)

I doubt not, it must be posting from time to time even if it is to say nothing, if only to show that we are still alive (healthy) :D

K.rotte

  • Guest
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2009, 08:46:48 PM »
New Beta of HFS doesn't start with a gui...

The Process Explorer shows HFS249 running, but there is no Icon in Systemtray or something like this. And there is also no Connection to the server (timeout/not responding).

Old Version of HFS (247) doesn't start, too. it shows the same behavior. Before the update all works fine?!?!

System: Win Xp Prof

Offline jerome

  • Occasional poster
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2009, 06:35:27 AM »
after a machine crash on v249 before closing it but saving the vfs v249.
with a kernel check error alert on a first reboot.

it opened again on the vfs v248, it need to load the vfs v249, close HFS to take and write the change. (as usual)

i reverted to 248 because it was giving a better response time than 249 (before the first close).
from this page:
http://audio-planet-deluxe.eu (a 1&1 domain hosting normally not too far)

about 5mn using 249
30s using 248

Updating to 249, save the vfs, close hfs and open it again seems to work better now.

Maybe a few bot sensible on start,
65.36.241.76 internetseer.com is not cool for HFS
china telecom use also a lot of slots on many ports at the same time and it freeze HFS during few minutes.

cut the internet connection need a few time to reset HFS when it freeze, but it is faster than close and load again the vfs.

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *
  • Posts: 12949
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2009, 03:02:03 PM »
New Beta of HFS doesn't start with a gui..

it's hard to tell.
that's clearly not related to this version. maybe something gone wrong with the update itself.
do you have an hfs.ini file in your folder?
you may want to try holding SHIFT while you start HFS, but this will make you lose all settings. (not the file system, just the settings, like accounts)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 03:03:53 PM by rejetto »

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *
  • Posts: 12949
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2009, 03:09:11 PM »
65.36.241.76 internetseer.com is not cool for HFS
china telecom use also a lot of slots on many ports at the same time and it freeze HFS during few minutes.

mmmm....
i wonder if spiders goes through links to folder archive, or maybe also click the archive button (that's a form).
do you have folder archive as links in your template?


Offline jerome

  • Occasional poster
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2009, 05:00:12 PM »
no folder archive link (excepted from the hfs menu)
no parent and root folder archivable in my template but a lot of archivable children sub folders



Offline r][m

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249 %item-modified%
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2009, 08:23:28 PM »
In 2.3 beta 249 %item-modified% reports correct date, but time is 6 hours ahead of
the time reported by detail "modified" on the hard disk.
Oddly, my time zone is 6 hours off GMT so 12:00 pm converts to 6:00 pm GMT.
Build 248 reports item-modified correctly.

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *
  • Posts: 12949
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2009, 01:00:53 AM »
In 2.3 beta 249 %item-modified% reports correct date, but time is 6 hours ahead of

ouch. fixed in next release.

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *
  • Posts: 12949
    • View Profile
Re: Testing build #249
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2009, 01:01:27 AM »
no folder archive link (excepted from the hfs menu)

doesn't matter if it's in a menu.
the difference is just between a button and a link.
i guess it's a link, from your description.