On Saturday 05 January 2008 00:50, Robert Hailey wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Friday 04 January 2008 18:32, Robert Hailey wrote: > >> > >> Apparently until this revision 16886, (so long as any one node does > >> not timeout) a node will take as long as necessary to exhaust > >> routable > >> peers. Even long after the original requestor has given up on that > >> node. > > > > Yes. Is this bad? Obviously there are limits - if it gets a post- > > accepted > > timeout on any one node it will finish the request. > > > > Generally I think this is probably a good thing - the data is > > wanted, so why > > not find it? It will be cached and will be transferred later. With > > ULPRs it > > will even be transferred when we complete, despite the timeout. > > Interestingly (now that I have got the simulator running), this > 'general timeout' appears even in simulations between nodes on the > same machine. Unless I coded something wrong, perhaps there is an > added delay or missing response somewhere which is not obvious?
Entirely possible. Fixing it would be better than an arbitrary cutoff when we are still able to potentially find the data, and still have enough HTL to do so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080108/1b50a9c7/attachment.pgp>
