similar to: Disable sessions for search engine bots?

I''m interested in knowing whether a session is created by pages requested by web crawlers and bots. I am using MySQL as a the session store and would like to prevent requests by web crawlers and bots from creating unnecessary session entries. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send

Hello - In a default rails app, if cookies are turned off, Rails creates a session file in /tmp for every single request. If my site gets crawled by googlebot won''t this create thousands of sessions that don''t need to be created? I read the wiki regarding session management but there doesn''t seem to be the middle ground of "don''t create a session unless

I installed solr search engine in my Rails application when i started server then i found this message execution expired and usr/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:54:in `rbuf_fill'' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:56:in `timeout'' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:76:in `timeout'' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/net/protocol.rb:132:in `rbuf_fill'' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/net/protocol.rb:116:in

On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 13:45 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote on 11.12.2012 12:48:55: > > On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > Maybe I'm confused somehow, but I thought this one: > > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2 > > > does

On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but >> not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion >> failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: >> the Clang

Hi, many of the bots on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console don't do anything in their compile phase, even if they should. For example, these bots all don't do anything in their compile phase in any builds, even if they should: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/ http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux

Hi, It seems the problem is that the bot is updating llvm.src, but trying to build from llvm. Galina, it looks like this is related to your recent changes to zorg, you probably missed a spot somewhere and I can't find it on a first glance. Could you have a look? Thanks, Diana On 5 September 2016 at 12:01, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Thanks

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but > not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion > failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: > the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually > running any of the Clang tests! > > Could one

Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote on 11.12.2012 12:48:55: > On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > Maybe I'm confused somehow, but I thought this one: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2 > > does bootstrap and then run both LLVM and Clang tests (successfully): > >

Recently I grew tired of the repeated ssh brute-force scanning bots so I implemented a blocking algorithm in our version of OpenSSH. My goal was to find an algorithm which could block most of the brute-force attempts while being simple to implement and not rely on any external software. The algorithm I came up with is that login attempts are blocked if there has been X failed, and no successful,

I use Windows 2000 with Internet Explorer (5.5), R 1.4.0, ESS and emacs. Internet Explorer frequently crashes upon using the search engine. The machine says it is generating an error log, but I don't know how to access it. Any thoughts? Thanks, Henry Martin Henry H. Stevens, Assistant Professor 338 Pearson Hall Botany Department Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 Tel: (513) 529-4206 FAX:

On 5 September 2016 at 22:12, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Should we revert this? This is pretty serious? Can we fix this quickly > on the bots? Just FYI, I'm moving the "llvm" directory away and making it as a symlink to "llvm.src", at least until we sort out this problem. Since this has been going on from Sep 1st, I believe we'll

Hi David/Galina, FYI, I found one big reason why self-hosting bots fail long after the offending commit is tested: dirty builds. In a dirty build (no make clean), when a file X is changed that breaks file Y, the bot will only accuse the failure when file Y is changed, too, so that stage1 with modified X will compile file Y, and break. At hindsight, it's obvious. But I hadn't connected

So, in the end looks like this setuptools 36 was deleted from pypi. There is an issue [1] open on setuptools. I can confirm by trying to force to install this version: $ pip install setuptools==36.0.0 Collecting setuptools==36.0.0 Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement setuptools==36.0.0 (from versions:<many version numbers>) No matching distribution found for

So, I broke a few build modes with a recent commit (r266002). I had been developing with clang in debug mode, which worked and passed tests fine. But upon committing, I discovered that I had broken: 1) Bots building with GCC. (fixed subsequently in r266011) 2) Bots doing an NDEBUG build with -Werror. (fixed subsequently in r266016) 3) Bots building llvm with msan. (fixed via revert r266062)

r223478 seems to be responsible for PR21770: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21770 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if it helps but the clang builder for mips has been dying of > timeouts since > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-mips/builds/389 which only > has one commit in the blamelist

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 7:23 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Apple moved all their bots to a Green Dragon CI system years ago: http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ <http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/> > > (yeah, it'd be nice if the project wasn't split between two CI systems) If someone is really bored, it would be a cute project

Hi, There was a new Python setuptools release (36.0.0) today, that caused this compatibility issue. The suggestion to stop breaking the builds is to add a static setuptools version on lnt's requirements.client.txt. The latest known compatible version is 35.0.2. I have tested it building a LNT sandbox and it seems to works. setuptools==35.0.2 I'll create a bug on LNT so we can

Good evening, Eli. 2012/3/25 Bendersky, Eli <eli.bendersky at intel.com>: > It appears that some of the bots on http://bb.pgr.jp use a really old > version of Python (2.4) I know. It is extremely old. IIRC, RHEL5(and its clone) does not provide python greater than 2.4 by default. EPEL (extra packages for enterprise linux, by fedora) provides 2.6. CentOS5, my buildslave, and RHEL5 can

Hey Galina, Will; I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually running any of the Clang tests! Could one of you tweak this build bot's configuration to match the other