comment
authorJoey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name>
Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:23:27 +0000 (10:23 -0400)
committerJoey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name>
Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:23:27 +0000 (10:23 -0400)
doc/forum/git-annex_causing_zombie_git_processes_to_build_up/comment_10_3bc5af3b28094fc042c207e307fe0c18._comment [new file with mode: 0644]

diff --git a/doc/forum/git-annex_causing_zombie_git_processes_to_build_up/comment_10_3bc5af3b28094fc042c207e307fe0c18._comment b/doc/forum/git-annex_causing_zombie_git_processes_to_build_up/comment_10_3bc5af3b28094fc042c207e307fe0c18._comment
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..c2b5191
--- /dev/null
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 10"""
+ date="2021-11-19T13:30:25Z"
+ content="""
+I have not managed to reproduce it using that script. I let it run for 5
+minutes (and 1 gb transferred).
+
+Since that commit points to stall detection, I hacked the code to
+constantly detect false stalls. But I am still not seeing any zombie git
+processes with that.
+
+If stall detection *is* involved, I'd expect that you would see
+"Transfer seems to have stalled" when reproducing the bug.
+
+Since stall detection could depend on available bandwidth etc, I wonder if
+the script reproduces the bug reliably enough for the bisection to be
+correct. It would be helpful to manually verify the bisection result,
+with a longer test period than the script used. And look for the above
+message when reproducing it.
+"""]]