Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org site availability

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 13 October 2020 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096BA3A11EB for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=jbbhn2Hh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=QOI7o8ME
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZhvCLHS6lpCt for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E87D13A11EA for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BD510C8; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:49:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:49:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=a NPXs1bgFuUqV013dh9L0GPPNGHfrP9pxy/m+WbcgHw=; b=jbbhn2HhoP1V6olMo pLVCYA8dA9pSwBAzRTFI8/PbfFmkiccX1Blf5pRgJOGCt0HQ4MBWSlB64xNRmSKG x68iF6cuGdQnhw3uqaY6MMAhKyh0BE4L/MlPf49BUMRxd0bwTAjGwcvCgY8M3esF mgrWgAHUI15JpksCm+PIsC0pEnsWvwkBzkXxhqvoHo0qsdWGUBH0owojex5UNuMV AqcBPNsmK6qYG46hDmpCBlWCkKIvGJLEZHiKA/EsSewHBikFS9fdOBklfLkbTyEJ f51u++U/UNZn7ngOAjvBXuIxrn97waDhi5+tzG1a8DVm1OQmCgws+V1a/DzXt9ah w1E8w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=aNPXs1bgFuUqV013dh9L0GPPNGHfrP9pxy/m+Wbcg Hw=; b=QOI7o8MEeJJq13mChZ7mHr/e/abTJfyItRDgLdEnjPdpySGvJG1OW27CX tbqP4aMp0gEA3QE84bbP3zt0pFG7LV5tCuTEbxMPlpDvsChcfEhQrFByzBTWUOUQ DCUGfGJzseDmlfmKxsTjw2hnUWAELrxcwTsFu558daGsvqS8j6aXgRayCS3/NWJz ZZ6sQFow60hGIwHsoUPvK7suMZ1SdK3q33tTJcSVLz6w86EQ0jXjvhCoZsJIXg6I nakzLyvRqZx7PqP+KAUqehNDYEx2XeX4ub6TYmfaXtmjbX8dST1V9Z1iaSv1Ec7V sSKSpq6tEpVqaa0f/evgpEN0aPT2Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Bi-GX27RH3WEBUW_kx5N3UkvrWdMLsMgbgZav2TfSFegK69HkMh5bg> <xme:Bi-GX_4bEzI6DUc4qk5wNtR0X_8F3n4NJm0VTmUt0rKn65Z91g6t8zQ8mCH8GRfZM OpVBbVEusVDfM2vdg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedriedtgdduhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcu pfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepfedttdduheeijeefgfetieevfffgheekudefgfdugfetueelvdfhtdefffegffdt necuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghdpnhgvfihrvghlihgtrdgtohhmpdhrvggusg hothdrohhrghdpghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudduledr udejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Bi-GX1d30YaGlEAO1obuDvo9oHt5jYsmKw0_IMQiBgk1V_hmV7fXiQ> <xmx:Bi-GXzJmf1NajUm9g37XqV8wqggaQhg5026VOTa80J4I1SpBHVcKCA> <xmx:Bi-GX6Iza9FStwPVpabMVxo72yjY30LDu6J3x1zEUqvEFjo9g1EBbA> <xmx:By-GX21HW8IOlDmEYMA18B_xckYA2MG-HtbAFifIvqyy-Nj0-0gcVg>
Received: from marks-air.mnot.net (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0B7A53064610; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <6bb5b9dc-59bd-927d-5e63-e7f55b0d023a@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:49:40 +1100
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, xml2rfc@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <991F4DF3-B0E2-4936-B3D5-7D11384BF01C@mnot.net>
References: <C68CE326-E5F7-46BF-9EC0-313AB5431F6E@mnot.net> <3517F297-B215-4A94-878C-64C8B3307EE4@tzi.org> <6bb5b9dc-59bd-927d-5e63-e7f55b0d023a@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/qltn5zxtmd4vxop68wEb62ojjTU>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org site availability
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 22:49:48 -0000

> On 14 Oct 2020, at 4:34 am, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> The server xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org has been under a few waves of highly distributed nuisance load, particularly at the end of last week.
> 
> I am watching xml2rfc with newrelic synthetic monitors, and generally the service is performing reasonably. (newrelic does not make it easy to create live public graphs, but I'm attaching some manually captured ones).
> 
> We are already looking at reimplementing the bibxml generators, and the service that provides them using more modern infrastructure. I expect that to be something that comes together next year.
> 
> I'll ask about the difficulty of adding an explicit Cache-control to what we have now, and look at whether fronting the existing site with cloudflare is reasonable.

That's good to hear - thanks.


> 
> RjS
> 
> These graphs are for a monitor that watches 
> 
> https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5730.xml
> 
> <aljaikppjnnbilil.png>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <lodkhhabfeckpnii.png>
> 
> This image shows the worst behavior during last weeks crunch.<eijjgbphpegekmoc.png>There is an SLA report you should be able to see at https://synthetics.newrelic.com/report/pQBOZ
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/13/20 12:49 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I’m wondering whether kramdown-rfc should be using more of the datatracker features here, as in
>> 
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis/xml
>>  (*)
>> 
>> Pro: datatracker might have a higher reliability
>> Pro: datatracker is faster in having the data available for new I-Ds
>> Con: that solves only part of the problem (only works for I-Ds, other bibxmls including RFCs would still need to be taken from xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org).
>> 
>> (The fetch timeout currently is 60 s for new fetches; I don’t think adding to that will make a difference.)
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> (*) Oh: 
>> https://redbot.org/?id=87dhdaee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2020-10-13, at 03:07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> The xml2rfc Web site's availability has been causing errors in the HTTP WG document builds (and elsewhere, anecdotally) for a little while now.
>>> 
>>> For example:
>>> 
>>> ~~~
>>> 68 /github/home/.cache/xml2rfc/reference.RFC.7234.xml: fetching
>>> 69  *** execution expired while fetching 
>>> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7234.xml
>>> 
>>> 70  *** No such file or directory @ rb_sysopen - /github/home/.cache/xml2rfc/reference.RFC.7234.xml for /github/home/.cache/xml2rfc/reference.RFC.7234.xml
>>> 71  make: *** [draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints.xml] Error 66
>>> ~~~
>>> 
>>> at 
>>> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/runs/1244800935?check_suite_focus=true#step:6:68>
>>> . This has been happening fairly often in the last month or two.
>>> 
>>> Does the Tools team have some sense of why this is? E.g., is the site monitored? Can it be put behind a CDN to improve availability?
>>> 
>>> Also, looking at the responses served (e.g., 
>>> <https://redbot.org/?id=2n90ryy0>
>>> ), I notice that there isn't explicit freshness on them, which means that some caches won't store them, while others will choose their own freshness lifetime. It would be better to set an explicit one, e.g., `Cache-Control: max-age=3600`.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   
>>> https://www.mnot.net/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xml2rfc mailing list
>>> 
>>> xml2rfc@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>> _______________________________________________
>> xml2rfc mailing list
>> 
>> xml2rfc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/