World: r3wp

let's be sure we're all running the same examples. The one in bug#1369 
is not the one Pavel is referring to, as far as I can tell.

The thing i can say after inspecting the source, is that it's not 
adapted to have several clients.

The clients are not waiting for any response from the server after 
sending each chunk.

So that, the server could be stucked with massives waiting chunks 
in memory

Steeve pls look up one page we are using single server single client 
large file example

Well, my remark stay relevant.

Because  if for any reason the server is slower than the client, 
a lot of chunks can be stacked in the server's memory

Pavel is referring to this example:

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Port_Examples#Transfer_a_large_file

Guys, I know that well, just read what i say

it's not adapted to have several clients
 <- but why do I get problems, then?

it's not the only one problem, all the chunks are sent in one massive 
request before the server treat them, i guess

can you just  change this function:

send-chunk: func [port file /local data] [
    append clear data read/part file 20000
    if empty? data [return false]
    print ["send:" length? data "bytes"]
    write port data
    read port
    true
]

just an idea, not tested

sorry, it's wrong, cause data is local.
I should make my tests first

Guess i'm stupid, the problem is really simple.
there is a timeout both in CLIENT and SERVER.
after 10 seconds both server and clients are stopped.
(check the wait command at the end of the scripts)

That's for Henrik's problem.
I don't have the stack overflow bug

doh... it's even written in a comment. :-)

:)

I suggest that the wait is done in a different way in the example, 
otherwise the example is not very useful, I think.

removed the wait, and it transfers perfectly.

Where you removed wait Henrik?

oops, not the wait, just the 10 near the bottom of both scripts.

Sorry to say that but still the same in my machine 4'300'000. But 
when you are happy it must not be generall bug.

well, we still need to figure out what goes wrong. do you start the 
client or the server first?

We know what's going wrong.

The write function (in the send-chunk function) triger a WROTE action 
immediatly without returning in the waiting process before.
To me it's a system bug, probably linked with the OS used (XP).

check the version of R3 u use too

A96

not you, Pavel

Pavel use XP, i guess only XP has this bug

I guess my version would be important too, if I don't experience 
the bug :-)

and I use XP as well and I don't have the bug.

you got VISTA, me too, and we don't have this bug

Oh ! really ?

strange

yes... :-)

so we have to check the version Pavel uses at least

Pavel, there is ablsolutly nothing else in the scripts you use than 
the code we are testing, right ?

i have to go, i pass...

Henrik, I started server first, originally I've set the wait to 60 
in server to be able to start client without hassle. Only what I've 
changed else in server was make-dir to not to create temp directory 
each time the server is started. But give me some time to try it 
in other machine.

Carl's Twitter message: "And yes, we will open the R3 Host Kit to 
all developers before the end of Dec. We did it this way to avoid 
a possible flood of dev feedback."

Henrik 1399 tested on different machine without problem (infinite 
wait) 200MB transfered, definitely the problem is in my machine. 
Apology for hoax.

Pavel, it's still a bug. It should work on your machine.

FYI when ran on Win2008 server only first lookup, read, write, happened 
but not repeating cycle sending data.

does R3 Chat work on win2008 server?

Trying to understand how the Port model works WRT sequences of calls, 
events etc.

For this I try to create a sequence diagram. You can take a look 
at:


http://www.websequencediagrams.com/?lz=U2NyaXB0LT4AAgY6IE1ha2UgUE9SVAoAChBTZXQgQVdBS0UgRnVuY3Rpb24AGglQb3J0OiBPUEVOClBvcnQtPkFjdG9yAAsHAAcFLT5UQ1BfRGV2aWNlOiBMT09LVVAKbm90ZSByaWdodCBvZiAAFQxPcHRpb25hbCBjYWxsIGlmIGhvc3RuYW1lIGdpdmVuCgBDCi0-QXdhawA8GAAVB0NhbiBkbyBJUCBmaWx0ZXJpbmcgZXRjLgoANwUAgQ4OUmV0dXJucyBUUlVFAFoOAIFOBj8_AFQQAIFmBjJuZCB0aW1lAIICBQCBMwUAgWYUAIIfBQCBKxNDT05ORUNUCg&s=napkin

This is a very cool

Nice ...

Cool Robert.

Nice .. can this dialect be written for View ?

/mode noob ON

I just realized that creating tasks works well since a while with 
R3.

And I already should have used it for some stuff, it would simplify 
my code.
What a fool !
/mode noob OFF

We developed a TCP server program using R3-a96, trying to make it 
run in Linux as a daemon program (i.e. running in background), however, 
we failed. It just couldn't run in background.

We've tried the following 4 methods:

1) ./rebol my-server.r -s 8000
The process status is "T"

2) nohup ./rebol my-server.r -s 8000
The same as (1)

3) setsid ./rebol my-server.r -s 8000

This one worked, but it refused to return the session, which is not 
acceptable for us. If we do this in a shell script, anything after 
it won't be executed.

4) echo ./rebol.bin | at now

It shows "Can't open /var/run/atd.pid to signal atd. No atd running?" 
Our shell script didn't have the privilege.

Please help me. Thanks.

Previously, I also haven't been able to separate "launched" versions 
of Rebol from the same terminal session. However, after a bit of 
googling I've worked out a way that seems to work using Ruby:
 
Macintosh:Rebol3 peter$ irb

>> require 'pty'

=> true

>> PTY.spawn("./rebol -q pong-server.r"
)
=> [#<File:/dev/ttys005>, #<File:/dev/ttys005>, 1437]
>>


Process 1437 was running in the list of processes and control was 
returned to the console session.

Of course, I had to manually "kill" process 1437.


As there is a formatting error in the pasted code, I'll confirm the 
ruby:

require 'pty'
PTY.spawn("path-to-rebol -options path-to-script"

I tested this on OSX but believe it should work the same under Linux.