milesrf's dashboard

I finally found the instructions for capturing a screenshot (in the Vista helpfile, with the keyword screenshot), but the first Xmarks error for which I captured a screenshot (not this one) gave me an error message when I tried to create a problem report with the screenshot attached.

Is there some other means I can use to send you the screenshot?

Can you provide suitable instructions of how to capture a screenshot?

I'm using 64-bit Vista SP2 on the machine where I saw the problem, along with both the 32-bit version of IE8 and the 64-bit version of IE8 (didn't notice which was in use during that problem).

I finally found what looks like the conflicting items on a computer that still synchronizes, and also a copy of a large folder tree (3674 items) under another directory. I deleted the copy of the large folder tree, and brought up the two conflicting items under IE8, then saved them in another directory, then deleted the conflicting items, synchronized on the computer where I did this, then tried to synchronize on the computer with sync problems. The xmarkssync.exe process appeared to almost freeze for several minutes, with a high page fault rate (up to 60,000 as displayed by Windows Task Manager) even though it was using only about 260 MB of the 2 GB memory this machine has. Then the icon went back to showing an error; a new variation this time:

An error occured during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click Help for
additional support.

Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source:internal: id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert T7hm82 , bnid:, name:Chromium,
glucose intolerance and diabetes. [J Am Coll Nutr. 1998] - [...], bnid:JAIX71,
name:Chromium, glucose intolerance and diabetes. [J Am Coll Nutr. 1998] -

Note that it appears to be seeing a conflict between two items with the same
name. If their URLs are also identical, why cant it just merge them?

This produced a log file too big for Notepad to open, even though I cleared
the logfile first. It also kept the icon from being able to open the Xmarks
user interface window for those several minutes, and now has apparantly
started another synchronization attempt with a high page fault rate.

I found the conflicting item on the computer that syncs correctly, created a new bookmark for it in another folder, then deleted the original bookmark. I then cleared the logfile, asked for a download, then walked away for about half an hour for breakfast; when I came back, a successful automatic sync had happened.

It looks like part of the problem was that the synchronization attempts were getting far enough to add some new items on the computer with the problem, at least those near the start of the folder list on the server, but not far enough to delete a significant number of the old ones.

Suggestions for a more permanent fix:

1. If there are duplicate nids for an item with both the name and the URL matching, put up a message window asking the user if it's OK to delete the local one; if the user approves, this is equivalent to downloading just that item from the server and replacing the old one. This loses the local item's history, but since the two items are otherwise equivalent, most users would approve.

2. In order to handle similar conflicts for items not quite so equivalent, either allow the user to give the local item a new nid, or move it to a different folder, or at least the ability to look up the entire folder path to the item given the nid from the error message.

3. If you prefer, just modify the error messages in the log file to include the entire folder path of the item the error is about, but make sure that users can still see the relevant part of the logfile even when the logfile is too big to open in Notepad.

I don't think I mentioned that a day or two ago, I walked away from my laptop for an hour or two, and when I came back, it had synchronized successfully. Therefore, all three computers are synchronized again for now; we'll see how long that lasts.

I am able to reproduce it that way.

I see nothing of the Advanced window or in the logfile indicating that the Download actually did anything to remove the old database or create a new one; you may want to have the Download code send messages to both marking when it started and when it ended.

Perhaps I've set my Internet Explorer screen wider than you have; I wouldn't call that the top left corner, since it's closer to the top right corner for me, but still not as far to the side that I'd call it the top right corner..

Finally found it. – milesrf, on November 17, 2009 23:10

I am. What Welcome link in the top right corner? I don't see one.

I saw the notice that the new 1.1.3 version is now available, and installed it on two of my machines. Apparantly, it does not handle the duplicate nids problem any better, at least if installed when the previous version has this problem.

The following was AFTER a reboot, a Clear Logfile, a Download, and a Synchronize Now:

An error occured during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click Help for
additional support.

Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert S7hm82 , bnid:, name:A
comparison of the insulin sensitive transport of... {J Inorg Biochem [...],
bnid: SV8Ew1, name:A comparison of the insulin-sensitive transport of... [J Inorg

For this error, the logfile was too large for Notepad to open it.

An error occured during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click Help for
additional support.

Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert U7hm82: , bnid:, name:[Chromium
as an essential element][Cas Lek Cesk. 2003] - Pubmed resul [...],bnid:SV8Ew1,
name:[Chromium as an essential element][Cas Lek Cesk. 2003] - Pubmed result

Again, the logfile was too large for Notepad to open it.

From a different occurence of the problem:

Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: T7hm82, serverID: xfx86
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: T7hm82, serverID: 3iFXj1
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: T7hm82, serverID: PbLXK3
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: T7hm82, serverID: U7hm82
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: T7hm82, serverID: S7hm82
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: T7hm82, serverID: T7hm82
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Synchronize failed
Tue Nov 17 06:46:39 2009: Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id: -50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert T7hm82: , bnid:, name:Chromium, glucose intolerance and diabetes. [J Am Coll Nutr. 1998] - P (...), bnid:JAIX71, name:Chromium, glucose intolerance and diabetes. [J Am Coll Nutr. 1998] - PubMed result

From another try:

An error occured during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click Help for
additional support.

Unexpected orror during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert T7hm82 , name:Chromium,
glucose intolerance and diabetes. [J Am Coll Nutr. 1998] - P [...], bnid:JAIX71,
name:Cnromium. glucose intolerance and diabetes. [J Am Coll Nutr. 1998] -

Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: xfx86
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: 3iFXj1
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: PbLXK3
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: U7hm82
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: S7hm82
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Synchronize failed
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id: -50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert S7hm82: , bnid:, name:A comparison of the insulin-sensitive transport of... [J Inorg Biochem (...), bnid:SV8Ew1, name:A comparison of the insulin-sensitive transport of... [J Inorg Biochem. 2004] - PubMed result
Tue Nov 17 09:15:48 2009: Attaching observers

Looks like the end of the logfile is no longer matching up with the error message, at least after the rather long time needed to display the logfile. Could we have an option to tell it to display only so many lines at the end of the logfile, so Notepad can open this faster? I'm now getting logfiles often over 100,000 KB, even when they're small enough Notepad can open them.

Also, I've spotted a possible cause for getting multiple bookmarks pointing to the same URL. Some versions of either Xmarks or IE appear to have been sometimes adding an invisible character, and not always the same one, to the bookmark name when producing an abbreviated name if the original name was too long to display. The check for duplicate bookmark names does not appear to ignore this invisible character; neither does the IE code for editting the bookmark name.

Also, the IE8 option for displaying the installed add-ons cannot find a company name and version number for Xmarks; therefore I cannot use this to check for signs that at least part of the previous Xmarks version is still installed and causing the current problems. Could this be added?

The increased variation of error messages I'm getting suggest that Xmarks for IE v1.1.3 MAY be assigning a new nid when it detects duplicate nids, but only one for each synchronization attempt. If so, could it be modified so that after this nid change, it immediately does another synchronization or download attempt, unless it is then able to continue with the previous attempt?

Needs an option to tell it to wait until the bookmarks has been unreachable for a certain length of time before moving it, in order to handle sites that don't run 24 hours a day.

Once you install Xmarks on the new computer and tell it how to connect to the same website account, it will probably do that automatically within an hour. If that isn't fast enough, the way I do it with Xmarks for IE is to click on the Xmarks icon (a white X in a blue box) near the lower right corner of the screen, then click on Synchronize Now.

Since the last error message did not suggest how to fix the problem, I decided to do some work on a computer properly synchronized to reduce the number of duplicate URLs with different names. For no obvious reason that turned the last error into this one:

An error occurred during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click Help for
additional support.

Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert U7hm82: , bnid:, name:[Chromium
as an essential element][Cas Lek Cesk. 2003] - Pubmed resul[...], bnid: SV8Ew1,
name:[Chromium as an essential element][Cas Lek Cesk. 2003] - Pubmed result

For this error, is there any good reason for not assigning one of the conflicting items a new nid and going on?

The logfile was too big to open in Notepad again, and no other way was provided to reach it, so I can't show you the effect on the logfile.

I've thought of adding a second browser to this machine, in order to get access to some of the new features not provided in the Xmarks for IE version yet. Can you suggest a second browser for which a good set of features is available and it WON'T interfere with keeping IE as the main browser on the machine? Will I have to pay more to get Xmarks for that browser also?

Since that error didn't suggest any fix either, I decided to eliminate a few more duplicates using the other machine. This changed the error on the machine that wouldn't synchronize again, this time to:

An error occurred during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click Help for
additional support.

Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal,id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert S7hm82: , name:A
comparison of the insulin-sensitive transport of...[J Inorg Biochem[...],
bnid: SV8Ew1. name:Acomparison of the insulin-sensitive transport of...[J Inorg

Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: ObLXK3
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: fXB3m
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Detector [insert_reorder]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: I6hm82
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: U7hm82
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: S7hm82, serverID: S7hm82
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Synchronize failed
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:

-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert S7hm82: , bnid:, name:A comparison of the insulin-

sensitive transport of... [J Inorg Biochem (...), bnid:SV8Ew1, name:A comparison of the insulin-sensitive

transport of... [J Inorg Biochem. 2004] - PubMed result
Sun Nov 15 13:07:06 2009: Attaching observers

More work on the other machine only made the error type alternate between the last two. I have another machine with sync problems; haven't started doing much for that one.

I'd also like a button to pause my antivirus program, so that I could use the two buttons to test whether running both, but at different times, is sufficient to solve some problems I've been having lately, but with Xmarks for IE.

Rich,

Could you mention what antivirus program you were using then, in case that's part of the cause of the problem? For my last version of this problem, doing a download DIDN'T fix it. – milesrf, on November 15, 2009 06:55

Could you mention what version of what (if any) antivirus program you're using, to help determine if that's the problem? – milesrf, on November 15, 2009 06:53

Another variation of this error; looks like about two more days of fixup work.

An error occured during synchronization. If the error message below doesn't
explain how to fix the problem, please note the error's source and click help for
additional support.

Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:
-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert SvNCt , bnid: name: diabetes,
bnid: Crx86, name: diabetes

Initially, the logfile was too big to save. However, a logfile clear, then
two downloads didn't fix the problem; they both failed with the same error
message, and the second one gave this at the end of the logfile:

Sat Nov 14 23:44:30 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: SvNCt, serverID: pZrpl3
Sat Nov 14 23:44:30 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: SvNCt, serverID: g8hm82
Sat Nov 14 23:44:30 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: SvNCt, serverID: hp21h1
Sat Nov 14 23:44:30 2009: Detector [insert_insert]: localID: SvNCt, serverID: SvNCt
Sat Nov 14 23:44:30 2009: Synchronize failed
Sat Nov 14 23:44:30 2009: Unexpected error during synchronization: XmarksException [source: internal, id:

-50]: Conflict: duplicate nids detected on insert SvNCt: , bnid:, name:diabetes?, bnid:Crx86,

name:diabetes
Sat Nov 14 23:44:33 2009: Attaching observers
Sat Nov 14 23:45:11 2009: Attaching observers
Sat Nov 14 23:46:12 2009: Attaching observers
Sat Nov 14 23:49:42 2009: Attaching observers

I'm running some of the alpha test and beta test BOINC projects, and after
comparing error rates of Xmarks for IE v1.0.11 to the error rates of those
projects, I'd say that Xmarks for IE v1.0.11 should definitely be labelled
as in alpha test.

No clear information on whether it's the rather large size of my links file (currently 6,981 KB when I exported it on the machine with the latest problem), running Xmarks and Norton Internet Security 2010 on the same machine, or something else, that's causing the problem.

It not longer looks like just the size of the logfile, though; I'm getting various sizes at the point of the problem.