On Jan 22, 2008 5:20 PM, Robert Hailey <robert at freenetproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> 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...
>
>
> To clarify, I meant that upon realizing the pInstantReject, I restarted it
> w/ post r17192 for testing; not that I ignored it. Thus far (1 hour, 35k
> requests) I have not had any problems.
>
>
I ran it yesterday but had to revert back to stable. My node was only using
40 or so threads, had 10 "transfers" but had over 400 SSK request handlers
running! Bandwidth usage was about 50% of normal. It was up for at least
4hrs before I killed it.
It didn't look right to me, and since I run a seednode I couldn't leave it
like that. It deserves some more testing time in trunk, but I wouldn't
release it right away.
--
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death,
your right to say it. - Voltaire
Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080122/85f1e2fb/attachment.html>
