On Tuesday 22 January 2008 21:43, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > Nice. Are you fairly sure this works? Have you done at least some
> > testing on
> > it? I'm of half a mind to say revert it until after alpha 2 (this
> > week) in
> > the interests of stability, you see...
>
> I have tested it, in the little simulator (20 nodes) and am running
> this on my node now. The simulator works fine (CHK), my node has
> locked up once with pInstantReject=100%{Outputbandwidth liability},
> but I am not sure if it was running pre or post r17192 (forgot to set
> this.status), so I just restarted it. Given the nature of r17192, the
> symptoms make sense (thinking that every request is a failure for byte
> logging).Either way that's a bug we need to deal with... > > I did think that it may have been a bit ambitious to get in the alpha, > but the only thing that really concerns me is if any of a > unregisterRequestSender() is missing. Previously it was *easy*, if the > thread quit, you unregister it. Closely related to applyByteCounts() > now... if one is forgotten it is a minor memory leak, and a big stats > error. It does look solid, and we'll have to debug it after the alpha if not before, we don't want to delay it indefinitely. > > I also had a queue-per-priority patch, but I clobbered the diff and > was to frustrated to re-implement it :( :|
pgpI2y7od4BNS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
