On Sunday 18 February 2001 16:41, you wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > On Monday 12 February 2001 17:12, you wrote: > > > > > Why not just use a counter that's incremented when jobs are > > > > > dequeued and > > > > > > > > run in ThreadPool.run() and decremented in ThreadPool.reclaim() ? > > > > > > I take it back. Since reclaim is in the finally block of EThread, this > > > will work. I've worked in the necessary changes. > > > > > > Bad, could you backport them out of experimental. > > > > > > GJ: Try it this time. It doesnt seem to report negative values. > > > > I retested. There's still at least one bad bug. > > > > It causes the ThreadPool.run() to intermently stop running jobs even > > though less than maxThreads threads are running. > > I'm starting to think that recoding the damned pool is a better overall > solution. >:|
Don't get too discouraged. I think that you are almost there. I patched my tree locally with a fix functionally identical to the one you suggest below and have been running a fixed node for about 24 hours. It is very popular, often saturating the outgoing bandwidth of my cable modem. I have watched it run with the same instrumentation printlns in place that I used to diagnose the bug it the first place. It looks like it is behaving. How about getting a point release with the fix in it out as soon as reasonably possible? This bug in itself may be the explanation for many of the generic "the network sucks lately" complaints that I have been hearing for the last couple of weeks. The SendFailedException problem that I reported goes away with the fix, as do Authentication timeout errors when connecting to my local node. -- gj -- Web page inside Freenet: freenet:MSK at SSK@enI8YFo3gj8UVh-Au0HpKMftf6QQAgE/homepage// _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
