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 :(
:|
-------------- 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/20080122/7cb7456c/attachment.pgp>
