adding space between items in a a standard view

Re: adding space between items in a a standard view

Zeoraid and/or high availability of a ZEO-server

Dear friends,

I am surveying possible solutions for a high-availability Plone setup. The
point I am working right now is high-availability of ZODB and/or ZEO server
itself.

One possible solution, for what I understood (if right), is using Zeoraid. 

Does anyone have experience on that? I'd like to hear some comments on how
it would perform in a production installation.

Thanks,

Alberto

--

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Zeoraid-and-or-high-availability-of-a-ZEO-server-tp2410302p2410302.html
Sent from the Installation, Setup, Upgrades mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Migration from 2.53 to 3.2 leaves folders without all 5 tabs in Edit mode

I am trying to migrate content from Plone 2.53 to 3.2a, and their parent
folders do *not* have all five tabs in edit mode:     
    * Default
    * Categorization
    * Dates
    * Ownership
    * Settings

Instead, they only have two tabs: Default and Metadata. 

In addition, I get an error viewing an object in one of these migrated
folders: KeyError: 'nextPreviousEnabled.' If I copy the object to a newly
created folder, with all 5 tabs, the error goes away.

They were formerly Member folders, if that's a clue.

Help is appreciated.

Dan

--

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Migration-from-2.53-to-3.2-leaves-folders-without-all-5-tabs-in-Edit-mode-tp2416572p2416572.html
Sent from the Installation, Setup, Upgrades mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Migration from 2.53 to 3.2 leaves folders without all 5 tabs in Edit mode

dthomas218, on 2009-03-03:
>
> I am trying to migrate content from Plone 2.53 to 3.2a, and their parent
> folders do *not* have all five tabs in edit mode:     
>     * Default
>     * Categorization
>     * Dates
>     * Ownership
>     * Settings
>
> Instead, they only have two tabs: Default and Metadata. 
>
> In addition, I get an error viewing an object in one of these migrated
> folders: KeyError: 'nextPreviousEnabled.' If I copy the object to a newly
> created folder, with all 5 tabs, the error goes away.

'nextPreviousEnabled' is a new attribute on Folders.  So the schema of
folders has changed.  This means that you need to do a schema update.
Follow these steps:

- Make a backup just in case something goes wrong.

- Go to the Zope Management Interface.

- Go to the archetype_tool.

- Go to the Update Schema tab.

- I expect several types to be selected there already.  Keep those
  selections and make sure that at least ATContentTypes.ATFolder is
  selected.

- In the drop down box choose to update All objects.

- Select the 'Remove schema attributes from instances' checkbox.

- Click on Update schema.  Depending on how much content you have,
  this can take a while.

I'm not sure this helps with the two versus five tabs problem, but it
should at least fix the nextPreviousEnabled problem.

Good luck,

--

-- 
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
            Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Girl]

[Plone mailtoplone] Failed to drop email to InBox by Mailtoplone script dropemail

Dear All,

My environment:
plone 3.0.4 and
Zope 2.10.5-final,
python 2.4.4, (My system has a default Python 2.3.4.)
OS: Redhat linux.

It is difficult to install the mailtoplone.base and mailtoplone.contentrules
to the plone. I first use the eggs by:
# /opt/Plone-3.0.4/Python-2.4.4/bin/easy_install mailtoplone.base
# /opt/Plone-3.0.4/Python-2.4.4/bin/easy_install mailtoplone.contentrules

But the content type mailtoplone does not show up in the plone Add-on
products list. Then I copy the base and contentrules to the Plone instance
(zinstance) Products folder by:
# cp -pr
/opt/Plone-3.0.4/Python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mailtoplone.base-0.2.6-py2.4.egg/mailtoplone/base
/opt/Plone-3.0.4/zinstance/Products/
#  cp -pr
/opt/Plone-3.0.4/Python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mailtoplone.contentrules-0.2.1-py2.4.egg/mailtoplone/contentrules
/opt/Plone-3.0.4/zinstance/Products/

Finally, the two mailtoplone component showed up in the plone Add-on product
list, and then I install them. After that, I created a type
"mailtoplone.base: InBox" named globalinbox. The problem is that I failed to
drop email to globalinbox by the script dropemail. The following is the
result of running the script (the /var/spool/mail/plone is the email file):
**********************
# /opt/Plone-3.0.4/Python-2.4.4/bin/python
/opt/Plone-3.0.4/zinstance/Products/base/scripts/dropemail
--url=http://admin:password-Q0ErXNX1RuY05QpzExHByA <at> public.gmane.org:8080/Plone/globalinbox/
--file=/var/spool/mail/plone

Traceback (most recent call last):
 File "/opt/Plone-3.0.4/zinstance/Products/base/scripts/dropemail", line
84, in ?
   main()
 File "/opt/Plone-3.0.4/zinstance/Products/base/scripts/dropemail", line
80, in main
   raise e
xmlrpclib.Fault: <Fault -1: 'Unexpected Zope exception: zExceptions.NotFound
-    Site Error \n   An error was encountered while publishing this
resource.\n   \n    Resource not found  \n\n  Sorry, the requested resource
does not exist. Check the URL and try again.   Resource:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/Plone/globalinbox/xmlrpcview \n   \n\n
Troubleshooting Suggestions \n\n   \n   The URL may be incorrect. \n   The
parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect. \n   A resource that
this resource relies on may be\n      encountering an error. \n   \n\n   For
more detailed information about the error, please\n  refer to the error
log.\n   \n\n   If the error persists please contact the site maintainer.\n
Thank you for your patience.\n   '>
**********************

I thought creating another "mailtoplone.base: InBox" type xmlrpcview can fix
the missing "Resource:  http://127.0.0.1:8080/Plone/globalinbox/xmlrpcview",
but I was wrong. After creating the xmlrpcview, it showed missing "Resource:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/Plone/globalinbox/xmlrpcview/drop". Then I create the
"mailtoplone.base: InBox" type drop, but I was wrong again. It shows missing
"Resource:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/Plone/globalinbox/xmlrpcview/drop/folder_listing".
Then I created the "mailtoplone.base: InBox" type folder_listing, but I was
wrong again. It showed missing "Resource:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/Plone/globalinbox/xmlrpcview/drop/folder_listing/folder_listing",
and then I knew that I went to the wrong way.

Any hints are highly appreciated! Thank you!!

Best regards,
Jacky

--

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/-Plone-mailtoplone--Failed-to-drop-email-to-InBox-by-Mailtoplone-script-dropemail-tp2421147p2421147.html
Sent from the Installation, Setup, Upgrades mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Plone mailtoplone] Is Mailtoplone compatible with Zope 2 ?

Dear All,

The author said that mailtoplone make heavy use of Zope 3 at the following
mailtoplone tutorial:
http://plone.org/products/mailtoplone/documentation/tutorial/mailtoplone-integrate-emails-with-plone/

Currently, we are using Plone 3.0.4 with Zope 2.10.5-final. We failed to
setup the mailtoplone at our plone (I asked the question about the failure
in another poster), so I wonder whether you have ever succeeded in deploying
mailtoplone at Zope 2 of any Plone version. Or Is Mailtoplone only
compatible with Zope 3 ?

Thank you!

Best regards,
Jacky Wu

--

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/-Plone-mailtoplone--Is-Mailtoplone-compatible-with-Zope-2---tp2421174p2421174.html
Sent from the Installation, Setup, Upgrades mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Varnish cache does not appear to speed up page delivery

Hi,

I've installed Plone on a test machine (2.53GHz Intel Pentium 4, 1GB RAM -
running CentOS 5.2) and have done some rough benchmarking with Apache
Benchmark:

With CacheFu set up my site is performing very well: 32 requests per second.

After installing Varnish via 
http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/buildout/a-deployment-configuration
the standard buildout method  the corresponding results for pages delivered
via Varnish are: 30 requests per second. 

I have set Varnish to round-robin the two backends created by a default
Plone install (ports 8080 and 8081).

Am I expecting Varnish to work too fast? Should I consider dropping Varnish
completely and just using something like pound to sit in front of my two
backends?

Cheers,  Jim
--

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Varnish-cache-does-not-appear-to-speed-up-page-delivery-tp2422346p2422346.html
Sent from the Installation, Setup, Upgrades mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Varnish cache does not appear to speed up page delivery

JimL wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've installed Plone on a test machine (2.53GHz Intel Pentium 4, 1GB RAM -
> running CentOS 5.2) and have done some rough benchmarking with Apache
> Benchmark:
> 
> With CacheFu set up my site is performing very well: 32 requests per second.
> 
> After installing Varnish via 
> http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/buildout/a-deployment-configuration
> the standard buildout method  the corresponding results for pages delivered
> via Varnish are: 30 requests per second. 
> 
> I have set Varnish to round-robin the two backends created by a default
> Plone install (ports 8080 and 8081).
> 
> Am I expecting Varnish to work too fast? Should I consider dropping Varnish
> completely and just using something like pound to sit in front of my two
> backends?

Try to run varnishstat and look for cache hits and misses. It's possible 
that you've got your setup messed up. If you're testing, try to test as 
anonymous first.

Martin

--

-- 
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

Re: Varnish cache does not appear to speed up page delivery

On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:56 AM, JimL wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I've installed Plone on a test machine (2.53GHz Intel Pentium 4, 1GB  
> RAM -
> running CentOS 5.2) and have done some rough benchmarking with Apache
> Benchmark:
>
> With CacheFu set up my site is performing very well: 32 requests per  
> second.
>
> After installing Varnish via
> http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/buildout/a-deployment-configuration
> the standard buildout method  the corresponding results for pages  
> delivered
> via Varnish are: 30 requests per second.
>
> I have set Varnish to round-robin the two backends created by a  
> default
> Plone install (ports 8080 and 8081).
>
> Am I expecting Varnish to work too fast? Should I consider dropping  
> Varnish
> completely and just using something like pound to sit in front of my  
> two
> backends?
>
> Cheers,  Jim

Sorry, not enough information here.

What page are you testing?  And which rule in CacheSetup is it  
supposed to match?

Note that, by design, cachefu's default cache policy will not cache  
personalized views in varnish, even when technically non-personalized  
as anonymous.  This is the case for both the 'plone-content-types' and  
'plone-containers' cache rules.  If you want these views to be cached  
in varnish you will need to customize cachefu a bit.  But be careful...

To cache just the anonymous view,
http://n2.nabble.com/Do-NOT-cache-anonymous-split-views-in-squid-varnish-without-reading-this-first.-td2122122ef293352.html

To cache both anonymous and authenticated views, you need to customize  
the templates to de-personalize the views, perhaps by refactoring out  
the personalized bits into ajax calls or onto a separate non-cached  
template.

Ric