Hello,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:56:14AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:58:53PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > I don't think making nsmux capable of shutting down translators is a
> > hard task in itself: the central problem is that I am not sure we have
>
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:39:41AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:05:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31:26AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>
> > > And that means: nothing missing, nsmux works as it should?
> >
[...
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:58:53PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Frankly speaking, my memory holds no remembering of discussions about
> how to shut down anonymous translators. In the current implementation
> an nsmux client obtains a port to an nsmux node which redirects all
> requests to t
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:05:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31:26AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > And that means: nothing missing, nsmux works as it should?
>
> Apparently, nsmux is capable of performing a basic subset of
> functionality it was desi
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31:26AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 09:48:13 Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > Aha, good to hear. This means that, unless nsmux opens bogus ports
> > (which I don't remember), the anonymous translators will actually go
> > away after the timeout
On Tuesday 13 July 2010 09:48:13 Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Aha, good to hear. This means that, unless nsmux opens bogus ports
> (which I don't remember), the anonymous translators will actually go
> away after the timeout with the current design.
And that means: nothing missing, nsmux works as it sh
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:12:54AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 03:32:52PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > As far as I can remember, nsmux keeps the control ports of the started
> > translators, which, as I understand it, won't let them go away because
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 03:32:52PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> As far as I can remember, nsmux keeps the control ports of the started
> translators, which, as I understand it, won't let them go away because
> of absence of clients.
Nope. There is *always* someone who has the control port o
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 08:45:47AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Friday 09 July 2010 14:32:52 Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > Yes, you can kill them manually, but nsmux does nothing about dead
> > control ports; this memory leak you cannot avoid easily :-(
> > Nevertheless, I'd expect t
On Friday 09 July 2010 14:32:52 Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Yes, you can kill them manually, but nsmux does nothing about dead
> control ports; this memory leak you cannot avoid easily :-(
> Nevertheless, I'd expect that killing translators won't have other bad
> effect than leaving nsmux with invalid c
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 01:03:24PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Friday 09 July 2010 11:51:11 Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > Sadly, since I am very-very short on time now, nsmux is currently
> > stuck at almost the same capabilities as about a year ago: it works
> > for the simplest file,,a,,b
11 matches
Mail list logo
