* Michael Rogers <m.rogers at cs.ucl.ac.uk> [2006-05-31 09:59:12]:
> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> >You're basically saying that the workaround doesn't work for you, and
> >you're suggesting that we remove the watchdog in order to let YOUR node
> >harm the network, that's it ?
>
> I think he's saying that when the workaround is activated, the watchdog
> should be deactivated. That makes sense to me.
It doesn't to me : the workaround is supposed to solve the problem, if
it doesn't, then the watchdog has to act... There is no point in
removing it.
>
> >due to the real problem and the non-working workaround.
>
> Are you sure the workaround isn't working? It sounds like the watchdog
> might be restarting his node because of CPU starvation, not deadlock.
>
They are two levels :
1) the wrapper might restart the node if the CPU usage is to
high (I've never seen it occuring)
2) Toad's watchdog will restart the PacketSender thread if a
deadlock is detected... There might be a bug there, but it's not
supposed to restart the node : it might cause the high CPU usage
though.
In any case, we need the logs to know what has happened.
NextGen$
