> > >Timm Murray (hardburn at runbox.com <mailto:hardburn at runbox.com>) wrote: > >>/ Those "multiple instances" are just threads. Just the JVM alone has a fe= >/w=20 >>/ threads of its own. 111 sounds a bit excessive, though. >/ >Hell, no. That's a LIGHT load. > >freenet at dwarf <mailto:freenet at dwarf>:~$ ps xw | grep java | wc > 160 1119 9418 > >(And that's a node that's only been up for a few minutes.) > >--=20 >Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." >greg at wooledge.org <mailto:greg at wooledge.org> | - The Red >Hot Chili Peppers >http://wooledge.org/~greg/ <http://wooledge.org/%7Egreg/> | > > >
You are both misinterpreting what I am saying. What I saw were 111 threads for *each* connection. The output of "lsof -i | grep java | wc -l " gave "6937". While a total of 111 threads wouldn't have made me look twice, over 6 thousand kind of concerned me as to the state of a build that is to be considered "stable" soon. The only oddities about my system is that I am running with a minimal freenet.conf. Only: ipAddress=my.ip.address listenPort=21872 seedNodes=seednodes.ref to be precise. I added FECTempDir and mainport.params.servlet.1.params.tempDir later after my node complained about them not being there. I just would have thought that there would have been some reasonable defaults that would have prevented run-away thread counts or the limits are not being applied correctly. On a positive note, it was still fulfilling my requests eventhough it had a ton of threads going. It was just not so perky about it. Mike _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
