On Jan 24, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Well, I do think that this problem *generally* has gone away. A large >> part of the timeouts may have been request coalescing deadlocks. In >> my >> logs, I no longer see that "requestsender took to long to respond to >> requestor (+2m)", but when I do see that log statement fire, it is >> huge! >> >> Jan 24, 2008 17:05:11:767 (freenet.node.RequestHandler, RequestSender >> for UID 5637402349040790252, ERROR): >> requestsender took too long to respond to requestor (16m10s/3) >> Jan 24, 2008 17:05:14:446 (freenet.node.RequestHandler, RequestSender >> for UID 98827504771122964, ERROR): >> requestsender took too long to respond to requestor (16m8s/3) >> Jan 24, 2008 17:05:14:447 (freenet.node.RequestHandler, RequestSender >> for UID 774454676209630, ERROR): >> requestsender took too long to respond to requestor (16m8s/3) >> Jan 24, 2008 17:23:00:203 (freenet.node.RequestHandler, RequestSender >> for UID 7341907878853950087, ERROR): >> requestsender took too long to respond to requestor (34m33s/4) >> >> Half an hour for one request? Good night! > > This is suspicious, they are all roughly the same period except the > last. I > suggest you set log level minor and investigate what happened by > searching > for the UID.
I've let it run overnight, and they increase all the more (~15 hours). After pouring through a thread dump, I think that you actually just fixed this problem (waiting on chk transfers) with: r17272, r17275. Nice catch! This is the same node affected by bug#2006, I wonder if this is the root cause. -- Robert Hailey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080125/2e2e426a/attachment.html>
