On Friday 14 March 2008 16:29, Robert Hailey wrote: > > 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. > > Or maybe it's just that all those blocking within sendThrottledMessage > at the same time grab at the available packets, so some may starve?
What it means is we are trying to send more transfers simultaneously than will fit within the current allowed transmit rate in a reasonable time. This should be prevented by the current code... -------------- 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/20080314/1481e211/attachment.pgp>
