On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Robert Hailey wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> Since we introduced packet priorities, transfer failures have >> replaced lost >> messages as the main cause of large numbers of error messages in >> freenet >> logs. I have tried to investigate this: Firstly, I have set up some >> simulations in an attempt to reproduce any bugs which cause this >> (RealNodeBusyNetworkTest). So far, I only see transfer failures >> when the CPU >> is saturated. Secondly, I have added a new statistic for the >> proportion of >> transfers which succeed. On my node this seems to be consistently >> >90%. >> Therefore, it seems reasonable to abandon the chase for the time >> being, and >> demote the timeout messages to NORMAL? > > [...] > If sending the block transfer would timeout, WaitedTooLongException > is thrown (although a misnomer as it is before the wait...); and the > receiver is never notified. This would imply that some links are too > slow to transfer the average number of blocks even if the node(s) > themselves are not overloaded. > > -- > Robert Hailey >
Or maybe it's just that all those blocking within sendThrottledMessage at the same time grab at the available packets, so some may starve? -- Robert Hailey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080314/ef3ceb9a/attachment.html>
