Hi, https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/trunk/boost/algorithm/wrappers.hpp?... says "No handler matched request to /browser/trunk/boost/algorithm/wrappers.hpp" https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/79385 What went wrong? -- Olaf
On 7/9/2012 2:33 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/trunk/boost/algorithm/wrappers.hpp?... says "No handler matched request to /browser/trunk/boost/algorithm/wrappers.hpp"
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/79385
What went wrong?
The Trac administrators disabled the source browsing feature in a bid to improve response times. Whether they succeeded in that endeavor is an open question. ;-) -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On 9 July 2012 22:38, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:33 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/trunk/boost/algorithm/wrappers.hpp?... says "No handler matched request to /browser/trunk/boost/algorithm/wrappers.hpp"
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/79385
What went wrong?
The Trac administrators disabled the source browsing feature in a bid to improve response times. Whether they succeeded in that endeavor is an open question. ;-)
It was disabled to reduce server load, not reduce response times.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
What went wrong?
The Trac administrators disabled the source browsing feature in a bid to improve response times. Whether they succeeded in that endeavor is an open question. ;-)
It was disabled to reduce server load, not reduce response times.
Isn't that equivalent? Server load is just an under the hood detail, it's really about response times. -- Olaf
On 10 July 2012 09:45, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
It was disabled to reduce server load, not reduce response times.
Isn't that equivalent? Server load is just an under the hood detail, it's really about response times.
No, it isn't equivalent. It's a virtual machine on a shared server, our high server load was using up far more than our fair share.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 July 2012 09:45, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
It was disabled to reduce server load, not reduce response times.
Isn't that equivalent? Server load is just an under the hood detail, it's really about response times.
No, it isn't equivalent. It's a virtual machine on a shared server, our high server load was using up far more than our fair share.
Ah. Does sound like a non-ideal scheduler though, if one VM can affect others in such a negative way. -- Olaf
participants (3)
-
Daniel James -
Eric Niebler -
Olaf van der Spek