On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Fbe546 <email address hidden> wrote:
> You mean that the problem would be on the side of the FTP server ? It
> would be quite strange since it is a mutualized hosting at the largest
> hosting company in Europe and everything had been working for a year.
Unusual, yes. Unprecedented no. We had another user using FTP to a
hosting site that was build on Microsoft Windows with a cluster file
system that took 1-2 *seconds* to allow newly written content to be
read. (The details are in an old bug report, I don't remember the
number).
> Anyway, do you have any idea of how we could get a more precise idea
> of where the problem lies ?
>
> Looking at the FTP log below (found in .bzr.log), the problem would be
> that wb3yq8rbpvyrz1zlhsbm.pack isn't read correctly at 4.107 ?
Yes, exactly that spot. The file is written with APPE, then when it is
read-back it is not returning the expected content.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Fbe546 <email address hidden> wrote:
> You mean that the problem would be on the side of the FTP server ? It
> would be quite strange since it is a mutualized hosting at the largest
> hosting company in Europe and everything had been working for a year.
Unusual, yes. Unprecedented no. We had another user using FTP to a
hosting site that was build on Microsoft Windows with a cluster file
system that took 1-2 *seconds* to allow newly written content to be
read. (The details are in an old bug report, I don't remember the
number).
> Anyway, do you have any idea of how we could get a more precise idea lhsbm.pack isn't read correctly at 4.107 ?
> of where the problem lies ?
>
> Looking at the FTP log below (found in .bzr.log), the problem would be
> that wb3yq8rbpvyrz1z
Yes, exactly that spot. The file is written with APPE, then when it is
read-back it is not returning the expected content.
Cheers,
Rob