Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Sync Clobbers Chrome Browsers

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the browser-is-the-network-is-the-computer dept.

Chrome 102

If you use Chrome along with Google's Sync, you may have noticed something strange Monday: normally stable Chrome crashing. An article at Wired (excerpt below) explains why: "Late Monday, Google engineer Tim Steele confirmed what developers had been suspecting. The crashes were affecting Chrome users who were using another Google web service known as Sync, and that Sync and other Google services — presumably Gmail too — were clobbered Monday when Google misconfigured its load-balancing servers. ... Steele wrote in a developer discussion forum, a problem with Google's Sync servers kicked off an error on the browser, which made Chrome abruptly shut down on the desktop. 'It's due to a backend service that sync servers depend on becoming overwhelmed, and sync servers responding to that by telling all clients to throttle all data types,' Steele said. That 'throttling' messed up things in the browser, causing it to crash."

cancel ×

102 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sync was sunk (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251659)

Sync was sunk
By a bristly punk.
Having less facial drag,
He'd've more clearly thunk.
Burma Shave

Yeah, whatever. Top this. (-1, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251983)

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
'cause you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that butt you got
Make Me so horney
Ooh, rump of smooth skin
You say you wanna get in my benz
Well use me use me 'cause you aint that average groupy

Re:Yeah, whatever. Top this. (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252079)

I like big butts and I can not lie You other brothers can't deny

Denied. They do have a high comedic value, though.

Re:Yeah, whatever. Top this. (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252213)

Obligatory cover by Ian McKellen [youtube.com] facsimile.

Top that? Son, I'm gonna obliterate it. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253205)

All right - stop what you're doin' 'cause I'm about to ruin
the image and the style that you're used to.
I look funny, but yo, I'm makin' money see -
so yo world, I hope you're ready for me!

Now gather round, I'm the new fool in town
and my sound's laid down by the Underground.
I drink up all the Hennessey ya got on ya shelf
so just let me introduce myself

My name is Humpty, pronounced with a Umpty.
Yo ladies, oh how I like to hump thee.
And all the rappers in the top ten--please allow me to bump thee.
I'm steppin' tall, y'all,
and just like Humpty Dumpty
you're gonna fall when the stereos pump me.

I like to rhyme,
I like my beats funky,
I'm spunky. I like my oatmeal lumpy.
I'm sick wit dis, straight gangsta mack
but sometimes I get ridiculous
I'll eat up all your crackers and your licorice

hey yo fat girl, c'mere--are ya ticklish?
Yeah, I called ya fat.
Look at me, I'm skinny
It never stopped me from gettin' busy
I'm a freak, I like the girls with the boom
I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom
I'm crazy, Allow me to amaze thee.
They say I'm ugly but it just don't faze me.
I'm still gettin' in the girls' pants
and I even got my own dance

The Humpty Dance is your chance to do the hump
Do the Humpty Hump, come on and do the Humpty Hump
Do the Humpty Hump, just watch me do the Humpty Hump
Do ya know what I'm doin', doin' the Humpty Hump
Do the Humpty Hump, do the Humpty Hump

Where is your God now, Frosty Piss?

Re:Top that? Son, I'm gonna obliterate it. (3, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254093)

I am... Humbled...

Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (4, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251665)

Fine as *one* backup location, fine for non-critical data and apps, fine for anything that won't be particularly missed if it goes offline for a while.

Shit for anything important.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251725)

I think the most important piece of the summary is not that the googly cloudy system failed (clouds fail, reality different than spin, is it still news?).

It is that it may be possible to crash chrome from remote, proof of concept exploits may follow soon.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252091)

Clouds don't actually fail. Clouds burst.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252697)

The silver lining here is that now google is aware of the issue. They can now make code changes and reduce dependencies. It is ok to depend on a service that should never go down. Its not ok to go down with the service.

Google is smart enough to learn from this and I expect chrome to resolve this in the next few releases.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (4, Informative)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252807)

It is that it may be possible to crash chrome from remote, proof of concept exploits may follow soon.

1) Getting it to crash doesn't mean you can actually exploit it. There are boatloads of crashes that you can't exploit

2) The only way you could crash it in this manner in the first place would be to re-target the sync endpoint to get Chrome to connect to a different remote server for syncing, which would be a huge security vulnerability in the first place.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253389)

This crash was simply an assertion failure (the browser raised an exception because it didn't expect a certain value from the server). It's a bad user experience, but it's most definitely not a security problem of any kind.

Throttle ? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251913)

Why not request bandwidth and only proceed when it is granted.

Re:Throttle ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252039)

Probably because it was the requests themselves that caused the crash.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42257725)

Yes, because hosting your own servers always leads to 100% uptime and zero data loss.

I guarantee you that cloud services have far far far far better average reliability than non-cloud ones.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259627)

I guarantee you that cloud services have far far far far better average reliability than non-cloud ones.

Same as load-balanced server farms, which are basically what clouds are.

Re:Why I will never use the "cloud" exclusively (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42271963)

they admitted this crash was an admin that made a bad change to there load balancer.

I miss Firefox in this regard (0)

DeadSea (69598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251723)

Firefox bookmarks sync is much better than Chrome bookmarks sync. Firefox stored your bookmarks locally and updated them periodically from the cloud. Chrome appears to have to download everything when I start the browser. I get a blank bookmarks bar for a few seconds when the internet is slow and I open Chrome. This is one place where Firefox got the design right and Chrome has it wrong.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251799)

What you are seeing has nothing to do with sync and would happen even if you turned sync off. Chrome is just starting up as quickly as it can and only loading bookmarks when it can get to it.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251831)

Firefox bookmarks sync is much better than Chrome bookmarks sync.

Chrome doesn't have bookmark sync, it has a fairly deep browser state sync which happens to also include bookmarks.

Firefox stored your bookmarks locally and updated them periodically from the cloud.

Which, if all you want is bookmark sync, is a fairly great way to do it. That's not the focus of Chrome's browser sync, so its not surprising that Chrome's sync isn't optimized for that use case.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (2)

robmv (855035) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251895)

Firefox doesn't have only bookmark sync, it can sync settings, bookmarks, add-ons, passwords, history and tabs

The real advantage of Firefox sync is that is encrypted on the client side, so Mozilla is unable to read your data, not the same with Chrome

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252011)

The real advantage of Firefox sync is that is encrypted on the client side, so Mozilla is unable to read your data, not the same with Chrome

That's what I thought too, but apparently Chrome can do that too - it's just not on by default. Go to Settings > Advanced sync settings > Encrypt all synced data.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253045)

I like firefox though. They tell you you are SOL without the passkey. I have no idea how Chrome encrypts. It looks like it is linked to your google account. Google could easily be holding all the keys.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

CTachyon (412849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254381)

I like firefox though. They tell you you are SOL without the passkey. I have no idea how Chrome encrypts. It looks like it is linked to your google account. Google could easily be holding all the keys.

Chrome uses a passphrase to encrypt sync data. By default it will use your Google account password, but you can change it to use any passphrase. If the Chrome devs are doing it right, they should be running the passphrase through PBKDF2 to derive an AES symmetric key. It's worth noting, though, that the Dashboard [google.com] for "Chrome sync" shows counts for the number of synced items of each type. Assuming they're doing the crypto correctly, I see only two ways the Dashboard could know those numbers: (a) if Chome sends the counts in plaintext as part of the sync, or (b) if the items are individually encrypted (which is generally a bad idea due to known plaintext).

I do know from personal experience that you're SOL if you lose the Chrome sync passphrase (or if you simply want to change it). You have to click the "Stop sync and delete data from Google" link in the Dashboard, wait 5 or 10 minutes for the delete to finish, then set up sync again for all your Chrome instances. Oh, and Chrome sync still doesn't support OAuth login, so setting up sync is a pain if you have 2-factor auth [google.com] set up on your account (as you should).

Disclaimer: I happen to work at Google, but I don't interact with Chrome except as a user. I'm using knowledge gleaned only from using Chrome sync with my personal account.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266823)

Thanks, I just found that. I read the page wrong. Great to know. Also the fact you pick the key is arguably nicer.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253685)

The real advantage of Firefox sync is that is encrypted on the client side, so Mozilla is unable to read your data, not the same with Chrome

That's what I thought too, but apparently Chrome can do that too - it's just not on by default. Go to Settings > Advanced sync settings > Encrypt all synced data.

The problem is, though, that default is the reality for the vast majority of users.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254631)

The reality is, that most users don't really care if someone sees their bookmarks. It's only a problem for privacy-obsessed nerds who project their mania onto other people.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42257243)

The reality is, that most users don't really care if someone sees their bookmarks. It's only a problem for privacy-obsessed nerds who project their mania onto other people.

And for anyone who has gotten burned by someone seeing the wrong bookmark/history entry. The difference with privacy-obsessed nerds is
1) They see the problem before it actually happens to them and
2) They have nobody to actually object to their viewing horse porn.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42257313)

And that's cool - there's the option to turn it on for thems that wants it. Where it crosses the line is where they insist (like the GP) that having the option isn't enough, and that paranoia must be the default.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42254649)

And if you're uber private like me, firefox lets you runs your own sync server, I'm running it on a Debian box right now.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252817)

Chrome always encrypts your passwords on the client side - the other stuff isn't encrypted by default but can be encrypted as well if you choose to.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252909)

Great, I have old information of the first Chrome sync implementation. I will try it on my Chrome instances (my secondary browser)

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251949)

Firefox also sync'd history, a feature which I miss in chrome.

Why you may ask? "What was that page I was looking at on that other computer yesterday?? Let me check my history." Oh wait, Chrome doesn't sync history, that's why!

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254127)

Ya, I mean why would their focus be on features that users actually want?

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252003)

The best part about firefox sync is it always resulted in duplicates duplicates so even if you "lost" one set of bookmarks bookmarks then you'd have the other copy copy right there. That's why I stopped using firefox sync. xmarks on FF actually worked flawlessly, but FF wanted to put them out of business by shipping something built in that claimed to do the same thing for free but actually didn't work at all. Then I switched to chrome and never looked back. GOOG can F up quite a few more times until they reach the same level of annoyance FF sync reached for me.

Re:I miss Firefox in this regard (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252393)

Why limit yourself? I have been using X-Marks [xmarks.com] (originally Foxmarks) since 2006. Long before FireFox had sync or Google even thought of creating Chrome. It doesn't matter what system I log into or what browser I am using (well...between Chrome, FireFox, IE, and Safari) so I have a local copy on numerous machines and a copy in the cloud. You can even create bookmark profiles so those "mature" links don't show up on the work PC unless YOU want them to. If you add their premium service (US $12 annually) you can sync to your mobile device (iOS, Android, BlackBerry, Dolphin) as well as receive priority support.

Shocking! (1)

Origimist (814086) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251729)

Software crashes due to complex online dependency, film at 11.

Chrome + Windows = Firefox (2)

Baldrson (78598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251843)

It seems there are some significant problems with Chrome on Windows that go beyond Windows' standard brain damage. The problems I've run into have been numerous enough that I've had to drop Chrome on my Windows machine and go to Firefox. Everyone is familiar with the usual disk pounding that Windows considers more important than servicing user events such as mouse clicks, etc. However, in the case of Chrome it seems very much worse. Firefox -- no problem. (Yes, all the usual suspects such as extensions, plugins, malware/virus scans etc. have been dealt with.)

Firefox + Windows = Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251889)

It seems there are some significant problems with Firefox on Windows that go beyond Windows' standard brain damage. The problems I've run into have been numerous enough that I've had to drop Firefox on my Windows machine and go to Opera. Everyone is familiar with the usual disk pounding that Windows considers more important than servicing user events such as mouse clicks, etc. However, in the case of Firefox it seems very much worse. Opera -- no problem. (Yes, all the usual suspects such as extensions, plugins, malware/virus scans etc. have been dealt with.)

Re:Firefox + Windows = Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252071)

$ tr "Firefox Opera" "Opera Midori" < parentcomment

Re:Firefox + Windows = Opera (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253145)

$ tr "Firefox Opera" "Opera Midori" < parentcomment

That gives:

Itisrrmsithririiiris mrispgnpapcintioi blrmsiwpthiOpira Mi niWpnd wsithitig ibry ndiWpnd ws'istindiidibiipnidimigr.iThrioi blrmsiI'vriiunipnt ihivribrrninumri usirn ughithitiI'vrihidit idi oiOpira Mi nimyiWpnd wsimichpnriindig it idorii.iEvriy nripsiaimplpiiiwpthithriusuilidpskio undpngithitiWpnd wsic nspdrisim iripmo itintithinisrivpcpngiusriirvrntsisuchiisim usriclpcks,irtc.iH wrvri,ipnithricisri aiOpira Miptisrrmsivriyimuchiw isr.idoriii--in ioi blrm.i(Yrs,iillithriusuilisusorctsisuchiisirMtrnsp ns,iolugpns,imilwiir/vpiusiscinsirtc.ihivribrrnidriltiwpth.)

I'm not sure what this is intended to tell me, though.

Re:Firefox + Windows = Opera (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254325)

I think you just offered yourself to Cthulu for sexual favors.

Re:Firefox + Windows = Opera (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252117)

Cool but that landed you offtopic.

Try with: whatever + windows = linux or OSX

Re:Opera + Windows = Lynx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252319)

It seems there are some significant problems with Opera on Windows that go beyond Windows' standard brain damage. The problems I've run into have been numerous enough that I've had to drop Opera on my Windows machine and go to Lynx. Everyone is familiar with the usual disk pounding that Windows considers more important than servicing user events such as mouse clicks, etc. However, in the case of Opera it seems very much worse. Lynx -- no problem. (Yes, all the usual suspects such as extensions, plugins, malware/virus scans etc. have been dealt with.)

Firefox much improved (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252141)

Firefox is no longer the bloated piece of crap it once was while Chrome was new. It uses the least amount of ram of any browser. It no longer requires 4 gigs of ram and a quad core like version 4. Plugins no longer break with the latest release either between versions. Chrome has gotten buggy and much slower in comparison. In 2011 Chrome would the only browser besides old IE that could run on 5 year old hardware. Now firefox runs as fast as 2.0 on these systems.

Re:Firefox much improved (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252223)

Firefox is no longer the bloated piece of crap it once was

Yeah, every time a new version of Firefox comes out (what is it - every 8 hours or so?) we hear how the NEW version is all shiny and efficient, unlike those bloated OLD versions.

The cycle's been going on for several years now. I'm sure we'll eventually be hearing how Firefox 129 isn't bloated, unlike that gosh-awful memory hog Firefox 128.

Re:Firefox much improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252419)

yeah, it's not like shitton of javascript in modern webpages and html5/css3/svg support cost anything.
Seriously, ff3.6 shits its pants as soon as it meets javascript heavy page, end of story.

Re:Firefox much improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253727)

Look son, FF hasn't sucked since around v4. The trolls will always pick that version to bitch about as if that version defines every future version of FF. It's not that every version is categorically better than the previous version. It's that it's always better than the low point that trolls cherry pick. Rarely is it that the troll will actually compare consecutive versions. Often they aren't quallified to do so because they never bothered trying either version. They'll insist they're experts on the subject because they tried one version that sucked some time ago.

Trolls will aways claim that the version number increment rate is somehow linked to quality even though it's demonstratively not true. It's also not exclusive to FF. Carrying on about it simply makes you look stupid.

At any rate, even if some fanboi makes out like every version is better than the previous, it's no worse than the trolls that make out as if every new version is worse than before. It's sensational extremism either way. Really, it's not any different for any other product out there. Even a new version of a fucking potato chip is always ten times better than the classic chip. Get over yourself, dummy.

Re:Firefox much improved (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254165)

Memory isn't the only important factor in browser performance. Ya, its important on 32-bit machines but on newer machines what is more important is disk activity and cpu time.

Re:Firefox much improved (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42255221)

There are many old machines out there.

Look at the popularity of XP? Something insane like 300,000,000 still are using it today! with these machines that probably only have 512- 1 gb of ram ram usage is performance. XP swaps like a mofo too so less hard drive thrashing by less memory usage will help on such ancient platforms.

On mine and probably your machine yeah we have 8 gigs so who the fuck cares. But on these the companies and users see no reason to upgrade and Firefox 3.6 and 4 were getting near unusable after 2 or 3 tabs. Maybe after 2014 when XP is eol that number will change, but joe six packs will still use XP for moany more years to come sadly and as IE 8 stops working on more and more sites with jquery and google dropping they will switch to FF.

Re:Firefox much improved (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about a year and a half ago | (#42255925)

I use XP at home and I have 4GB of RAM and I keep enough tabs open all the time that I have to scroll through them.

Re:Firefox much improved (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42255249)

Go use it rather than hold on to your beliefs? Go under help about FF and update and give it a try for 10 minutes and tell me if it is now much better?

I submitted a story last july with Firefox 13 gets benchmarked here. You can do a search and look it up? I wouldn't touch before last summer but if you have Chrome Firefox is certainly an alternative again. It is prone to bad releases every now and then. Also the quality of the code is up now too so the old update jokes are invalid.

Re:Chrome + Windows = Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252153)

Everyone is familiar with the usual disk pounding that Windows considers more important than servicing user events such as mouse clicks, etc.

I'm familiar with this from my 2GB Mac; on my 12GB Windows box, not so much. It's called "VM thrashing". The cure is more RAM, or running fewer applications, or running better-written applications. A defrag may help too, if your HDD is nearly full. I'm not aware of Chrome using more memory than Firefox; anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite, so defragging seems like a good bet.

Re:Chrome + Windows = Firefox (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253197)

4G should be enough to avoid VM thrashing, especially when there is more than 1.5G free, as is typically the case.

No, what's going on here is ridiculous software engineering.

Re:Chrome + Windows = Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42260749)

What's going on is that you have a single-core CPU and/or you think it's the OS's problem when your applications don't separate the GUI threads from the processing threads. I have NEVER seen an instance in Windows 7 where the I/O threads are blocking the GUI threads except when a program is doing this out of ignorance. When the messages are sent to the application, it's out of the OS's hands.

I'm the other AC that said you sound like an idiot. You still sound like an idiot. And you are even stupider to me now that I've noticed you pay for this shit site.

Re:Chrome + Windows = Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42260637)

Everyone is familiar with the usual disk pounding that Windows considers more important than servicing user events such as mouse clicks, etc.

Not really. I think you've got a problem with your system or you need to get something better than a single-core CPU. It is almost 2013, after all. Perhaps you have a background application you're not aware of that is "pounding your disk" or perhaps you need some more RAM. Or perhaps you disabled pre-fetching of applications because the SuperFetch service was using too much RAM.

I only suggest these things because your comment makes you look like an idiot. You are clearly missing something.

The mobile browser was affected also. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251863)

I can tell you this for certain first hand. I was wondering if there was something wrong with my phone itself, had it not been a busy day there's a serious chance I would have devoted some time finding a better ROM even though Mean ROM has been been pretty good so far, other than annoyances with the Android browser - which is why I put mobile Chrome on despite them being so similar.

Yesterday? (1)

ContinuousPark (92960) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251931)

This is still happening today.

This explains it. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251969)

Here I thought it was crashing because I installed a plugin to make it more like Firefox.

Significant resource issues lately (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251979)

I've noticed lately my Windows 7 x64 machine has been having issues with a fraction of my normal "Tab load" on Chrome, crashing or freezing pages, unable to show YouTube pages properly, etc... I believe this might be related to the Sync problem, since I use that.

These problems started a few weeks ago.

Chrome crashed today (1)

Colourspace (563895) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252155)

for me in the exact way described, so maybe the problem's not fixed yet?

And Yet (5, Informative)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252231)

No one is talking about slashdot being down last night.

Re: And Yet (1)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252563)

It was mentioned in another thread today and was modded 'off topic' which to be fair it was. /. Wasn't 'down' though. Th front page was visible, the ads were loading, but, all clicks were ignored except the log in window which you could fill in then a 503 error this morning around 8.30 uk time. /. Was up, but unresponsive. Just like me at 8.30 in the morning in the office

Re: And Yet (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252837)

baloney. couldn't get anything. sourceforge, slashdot and freecode all down etc were down. front page was not visible

Re: And Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252997)

front page was not visible

Baloney. Front page was visible *inside* RSS items instead of the top-rated comments.

Re: And Yet (1)

Pope (17780) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254071)

baloney. couldn't get anything. sourceforge, slashdot and freecode all down etc were down. front page was not visible

Turn on your computer next time.

Re: And Yet (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252845)

It was mentioned in another thread today and was modded 'off topic' which to be fair it was. /. Wasn't 'down' though. Th front page was visible, the ads were loading, but, all clicks were ignored except the log in window which you could fill in then a 503 error this morning around 8.30 uk time. /. Was up, but unresponsive. Just like me at 8.30 in the morning in the office

Actually the clicks weren't ignored, as the URL bar showed. It's just that the complete URL was ignored, and Slashdot just showed the front page for any and every URL.

Re: And Yet (2)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253077)

You're right and my mistake. The URL showed correctly, but the page didn't load.

The front page was definitely visible at around 8.30am UK. How else was i able to attempt to log in and get a 503?

Re:And Yet (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253223)

Slashdot being down doesn't cause my browser to crash.

Re:And Yet (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254395)

Slashdot being down made me significantly more productive.

Re:And Yet (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year and a half ago | (#42255103)

Yeah, what happened? I noticed new stories were still posted and its uptime did not get reset.

Re:And Yet (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about a year and a half ago | (#42257973)

Dice was doing some DB server maintenance. They also took down Sourceforge for the same reason (since it shares some of the hardware).

DONT use the default bookmarks sync function (1)

hillbluffer (1684134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252425)

One more good reason NOT to use the bookmarks sync function the browser supplies, and instead use a third party alternative.

"Normally stable Chrome"? (0)

kiwimate (458274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252461)

Not in my experience. It crashes daily on me, often more than once a day. And the pseudo-Macintosh sad face "Aw snap..." message wasn't cute the first time. Now it's beyond irritating. Don't hearken back to a 20 year old theme in a vain attempt to try to be cute when you've imploded; at the very least give me some kind of error message. (I suppose that's verboten in the Google "less is more" universe, which is why you also strip down the browser interface so much that not only are semi-relevant buttons and menu items removed from view but controls I want to actually use on a regular basis have also disappeared! Dammit, Google...)

Tabs are hopeless; if I right-click on an interesting link and open in a new tab, I'll see the original page when I click to that tab. In order to display the correct information, I must refresh the page.

On my company issued locked down laptop, I have a choice between IE 7 (!) and Chrome. Chrome has become so unstable and irritating that I only use it on pages where IE 7 simply won't work.

Re:"Normally stable Chrome"? (1)

Ingenium13 (162116) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253475)

It sounds to me like you might have a corrupt profile? I've never had any of these issues with Chrome (on Linux) and I've been using it since the very first Chromium releases. Switched to the official Google version of Chrome a few years ago when it was released. It's pretty stable for me, but this bug did cause my profile to become corrupted and it would basically crash on startup. I just restored from my weekend system backup and everything was fine again.

Crash during boot (2)

nurbles (801091) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252467)

I'm more surprised that every time I BOOTED Windows there was a Google Chrome crash message box presented. I can assure you that I was never given an option about having Chrome start with Windows and I most definitely did NOT added Chrome to any of my start up stuff. So in addition to showing that actual humans work at Google (well, at least a few) this also exposed the fact that installing Chrome installs something (that may claim to BE Chrome) that normally runs silently every time Windows is started. Maybe some of you knew about it, but it was news to everyone I've asked.

Also, I've been bit by Firefox's sync feature, too, when one of the machines had a problem and trashed all of my settings, bookmarks and add-ons the sync feature decided to propagate THAT to my other machines instead of using sync to fix the broken one. One would think that, if it was smart enough to detect that those things were corrupted, it should have used sync to get good copies, NOT to share the corruption. Heh... Maybe there's an ex or future politician writing code for Firefox, eh?

Line by line debugging reveals... (5, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252559)

//try
//{
tabs.sync();
//}
//catch
//{
//printf("Oops, cloud sync failed. Terribly sorry, Captain. We'll fail gracefully and just make do without.");
//}
// James, I fucking told you not to use try-catch statements, they're too slow. The code works and a cloud failure is basically impossible (five nines, baby) so just chill, will you?
// P.S. /* comment */ is for chumps.

Re:Line by line debugging reveals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253733)

If you are using a try-catch for error handling you are doing it wrong. [slashdot.org]

I'll take stability & accuracy over "speed"... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42257481)

How's it "wrong" to handle errors gracefully? Yes - It may slow you up some, but it's SMART to do, because all the speed in the world means squat if your code crashes & burns!

I usually do these types of constructs because of that (using Borland Delphi Object Pascal here, except = same as "catch" with Try):

---

Try
      Try .....
      Except .....
      End;
Finally .....
End;

---

* That way, I can handle ANY exceptions ANY way I like (both in an errlog with structured exception classes dumps, OR, with my own err/abend messages (usually these are for users)) & yet, still be accurate/stable as possible for 'safer' code!

I sometimes even "override" the default error handling to dump to a log, as to actual "structured exception handlers" (error handling classes), & let the user have a 'friendlier' one (IF I do so @ all), & give the user a "less fearful" feedback IF errors/abends hit!

---

ALA:

{STD ERR OVERRIDE SECTION}
procedure AppException(Sender: TObject; E: Exception);

procedure TForm1.AppException(Sender: TObject; E: Exception); register;
var // CUSTOM EXCEPTION HANDLER/MASK & LOG - "STD. ERR" override... apk
  ErrorLog: System.Text;
begin inherited;
  AssignFile(ErrorLog, ExePath + 'APKErrLog.txt');
  try
    System.Append(ErrorLog);
  except
    on EInOutError do
      Rewrite(ErrorLog);
  else // BLANK ELSE STOPS ALL ERRMSG SHOWING... apk // Use commented off code below IF you want to show it... apk
  end;
  Writeln(ErrorLog,
                  format('%s %s %s [%s]',
                                [TimeToStr(Now),
                                  DateToStr(Date),
                                'APK', E.Message]));
  Application.ProcessMessages;
    System.Flush(ErrorLog); // Added later on 'rice', good catch! apk
    System.Close(ErrorLog);
  Application.ProcessMessages; // Show the error? NO! Just pipe to a log... apk
{
  MessageDlg(E.Message + '. Occurred at: ' + Addr, mtError, [mbOK],0);
  Form1.StatusBar1.Panels[0].Text:= E.Message;
  MessageBeep(MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
  Application.ShowException(E);
  ShowMessage(E.Message);
}
end;

---

Then, in the actual functions &/or procedures I do either of these 2 options, as needed:

E.G.:

A PLAIN EXCEPTION BLOCK:

try ...
  try ....
  except
      ShowMessage('Contact your SysAdmin - err in function/procedure whateverthenameofitishere');
  end;
finally
  Button1.Enabled:=true;
end;

---

HANDLING STD. EXCEPTION CLASSES:

try ...
  try ....
  except
    on E : Exception do
        ShowMessage(E.ClassName+' error raised, with message : '+E.Message);
  end;
finally
  Button1.Enabled:=True;
end;

(THESE "exception classes" types here WON'T SHOW WITH MY OVERRIDE TO LOG TRICK ABOVE... these get piped to logs for debugs by the coder himself (me))

---

Then, as you can see above - I do the FINALLY block, last - makes SURE certain things occur, abend.crash, or not!

(For instance - Which IF an exception occurs, my forms controls in GUI programs don't get disabled & NOT come back enabled, etc./et al type things, for example... I disable a control quite often once a user has set that thread into motion (and many times, it using CreateThread API work to do that part of it, so I don't want it "hitting the same data twice" etc.)).

APK

P.S.=> Seems to work well for me, for the "best of both worlds", & to me? Again - speed is a secondary factor to program stability + accuracy of data processing & outputs!

... apk

Kindly justify the downmod of my post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42273383)

With VALID critique based on valid grounds in programming vs. "hit & run" downmods of it here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3308821&cid=42257481 [slashdot.org]

* Pitiful to do a "hit & run" downmod that has no valid basis behind it... weak move, trolls!

APK

P.S.=> After all - when "the best you've got" = downmods for no valid technical reasons in computer programming? You FAILED, trolls... period!

... apk

Re:Line by line debugging reveals... (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253761)

Ha! I think I worke with that guy. I love the C guys stuck in the 80s, who think exceptions are somehow slower than checking a return code and conditionally branching manually at every layer in the stack, and even better the guys who just never check for errors - faster that way.

At least Chrome is hitting an assertion and not a crash.

Re:Line by line debugging reveals... (1)

You're All Wrong (573825) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254559)

Maybe you can explain why when you search for "C++ exceptions are NOT slow" on the internet at large, you will only find discussion threads about how slow C++ exception handling is?

The null hypothesis is that fancy tech would have an overhead. If you're going to claim it doesn't, then you need to provide the independent studies verifying that claim.

Re:Line by line debugging reveals... (2)

lgw (121541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42254763)

C++ error checking was horribly slow when the feature was first added to compilers (late 80's, or early 90's, depending on the compiler), but that got fixed soon thereafter.

Basically, a catch block pushes a marker on the stack, which is pretty fast. On a throw, the compiler looks for that marker on each stack frame it unwinds, which is not free but still pretty fast - and since it's completely under the compiler's control, it's quite well optimized these days.

So, it's stil slower than not doing error checking, but we don't live in a security world where that's acceptable any more. However, compared to the old paradigm of all functions return an error code, and you check that error code after every function call you ever make it's faster. If you grok assembly you can simply look at the optimized output in the debugger: fewer conditional branches when using exceptions, as one would expect.

What's really bad, by performance or any other measure, in any programming language is "pokemon exceptions" ("gotta catch em all") where every damn function has a catch block. But that's just bad code.

Re:Line by line debugging reveals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258429)

try-catch is fine for exception handling. With the caveat that exceptions really have to be exceptions (that is: rare). When you need fast error handling, you use continuations or setjmp/longjmp. Of course, by then your C++ code will not work like you thought it would and was a bad design choice to begin with (for this set of applications).

Do NOT use exceptions for trivial things like checking if a file existed (you should expect a lot of files do not exist and handle them in a separate case unless it was a fatal error).

Read please... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42260477)

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3308821&cid=42257481 [slashdot.org]

* I'll take accuracy & stability over speed, any day of the week...

(If you weren't serious, & only being funny (since you were rated that)? Disregard this & the link!)

APK

P.S.=> To quote "Forrest Gump"? "That's all I have to say about that..."

... apk

Re-Read please... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42273417)

With VALID critique based on valid grounds in programming vs. "hit & run" downmods of it here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3308821&cid=42257481 [slashdot.org]

* Pitiful to do a "hit & run" downmod that has no valid basis behind it... weak move, trolls!

APK

P.S.=> After all - when "the best you've got" = downmods for no valid technical reasons in computer programming? You FAILED, trolls... period!

... apk

Clouds were meant to rain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252705)

Clouds were meant to rain

Misplaced Dependence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252763)

It's due to a backend service that sync servers depend on becoming overwhelmed

So they are saying that the fix is to simply overwhelm the service? You know, since the sync servers depend on it being overwhelmed... ;)

Chrome crashing is nothing new for me. (0)

BLToday (1777712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252949)

Chrome's been crashing consistently for all my machines for the last month or so:
desktop (Win7-32 bit)
laptop (Win7-32 bit)
macbook pro (Mountain Lion)
macbook (Snow Leopard)

I can go days without Firefox or even Safari crashing on me. But I usually have a problem with Chrome dying on me by the end of the day. Maybe it's a combination of Flash/Sling Player that's giving Chrome such problems on my machines.

Re:Chrome crashing is nothing new for me. (1)

TheBogBrushZone (975846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253665)

You're not the only one with issues. Chrome crashes every 5-10 minutes on one of my laptops (a Windows 7 64-bit machine) which is down to a known compatibility problem with a DLL that's part of the Killer NIC drivers and some other software (bfllr.dll). This problem has been knocking around for a while but Google have done nothing to address it and Killer just try to blame it on browser extensions and ignore the problem.

Re:Chrome crashing is nothing new for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253775)

My home desktop hasn't been able to watch ESPN or Youtube without Chrome randomly crashing for two or so months now. And by random I mean there is no buildup to a crash, it can happen after long or short periods, and there is no issue restarting it. It can crash three times in a row loading an ESPN stream, and then the fourth time it may never crash or it may crash 30 minutes in. I switched back to Firefox which feels slower in some cases, but I care more for stability.

It is severely beyond me why anyone techie.. (0)

chaseDigger (2778687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253083)

..would want to use Chrome, the whole thing feels like a trojan horse, it installs Google updaters EVERYWHERE (even in Firefox's plugin department) and is co-dependent on the google web (tm) to an extend where how they balance their load-balancing servers will be enough to crash it?! Firefox and duckduckgo FTW (on related note; I just noticed recently that the latter's stats have gone through the roof, visitor-number-wise, in last few months).

I'm confused... (1)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253091)

So for one day Internet Explorer was actually superior to Chrome?

old newz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253195)

That bug clobbered me a couple of months ago so I think not so knew, just a new twist. Sync would break across browsers even despite applying the recommended fixes. seemed to be an authentication issue

normally stable? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253225)

Normally stable? What Chrome are they talking about because 25 is not stable?! They must not be talking about laying out pages wrong because you include that and it's right up there with Safari, lol. And forget super-complicated, code-heavy interactive pages. It will destroy them.

My main issue with chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253249)

I have found Chrome to be relatively stable, but what bugs me is when searching for text in a large file (something I often do at work) it gets bogged down tracking down ALL instances, which is nice to see on the bar when it is done, but I wish it would do that in a separate thread.

chrome+gmail is buggy as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253493)

Its just weird... can't attach emails in chrome. Works fine in firefox on the same computer. All latest versions, but the bug has been logged for ages (not by me). Why they don't / can't fix something so basic is baffling.

IE (2)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253831)

This is why I use IE 6!! Rock solid.

YouTube's fault? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259783)

On Monday, Google started to disable the old Youtube login, and started to require people to login to GMail in order to access and update and comment on their Youtube videos. It's likely that many people established or started using a GMail account, and so this problem popped up.

Many other people started switching to Vimeo and other video hosting services.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>