-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tyler Riddle wrote:
| I was not insuating you were doing something wrong - I
| was actualy using your case as an example of why the
| default start-freenet.sh should nice the java process
| - if anyone who has the desire to fix it noticed I
| hope
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 13:39, you wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:53:45AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> > The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt it
> > will save individual nodes from massive overload.
> >
> > Has anyone conclusively figured out the CPU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tyler Riddle wrote:
| I had a nasty problem with freenet making my computer
| unusable too. However, on a unix box, this is super
| easy to solve and I have never had that problem again
| since the first day it happned.
|
| Just nice the java process
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sandberg wrote:
| On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:53:45AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
|
|>The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt
it will
|>save individual nodes from massive overload.
It didn't save me..
|>
|>Has
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:30PM -0800, Tyler Riddle wrote:
> I was not insuating you were doing something wrong - I
> was actualy using your case as an example of why the
> default start-freenet.sh should nice the java process
> - if anyone who has the desire to fix it noticed I
> hope they do.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:53:45AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt it will
> save individual nodes from massive overload.
>
> Has anyone conclusively figured out the CPU usage issue?
I had high CPU usage yesterday when the
At 07.01 29/10/02 -0500, you wrote:
>> Currently rel-0-5-1 has it
>[...]
>
>A word of warning to people who may try this: port 8889 is GONE. The
>node status stuff has been merged into port .
What about distribution port ?
Better, what about distribution service ???
Ciao. Marco
--
+
I was not insuating you were doing something wrong - I
was actualy using your case as an example of why the
default start-freenet.sh should nice the java process
- if anyone who has the desire to fix it noticed I
hope they do.
Or would it be beter if I made the (trivial) patch and
posted it to
I had a nasty problem with freenet making my computer
unusable too. However, on a unix box, this is super
easy to solve and I have never had that problem again
since the first day it happned.
Just nice the java process to something other then 0.
I run my node at nice 10 but if you wanted a good
The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt it will
save individual nodes from massive overload.
Has anyone conclusively figured out the CPU usage issue?
I suspect that there might have been a regression somewhere between 600 and
603, however, it is impossible to test
Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
> Currently rel-0-5-1 has it
[...]
A word of warning to people who may try this: port 8889 is GONE. The
node status stuff has been merged into port .
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody."
greg at
Hi. In the latest round of the saga, I have generated JARs for freenet
0.5.0.1. The first ones had empty seednodes, but now they're ok. Oskar
seems convinced that the thread factory is OK, but I'm not... so I am
not sure whether we should change the default maxThreads to -120 before
release (that
The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt it will
save individual nodes from massive overload.
Has anyone conclusively figured out the CPU usage issue?
I suspect that there might have been a regression somewhere between 600 and
603, however, it is impossible to test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sandberg wrote:
| On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:53:45AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
|
|The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt
it will
|save individual nodes from massive overload.
It didn't save me..
|
|Has anyone
I had a nasty problem with freenet making my computer
unusable too. However, on a unix box, this is super
easy to solve and I have never had that problem again
since the first day it happned.
Just nice the java process to something other then 0.
I run my node at nice 10 but if you wanted a good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tyler Riddle wrote:
| I had a nasty problem with freenet making my computer
| unusable too. However, on a unix box, this is super
| easy to solve and I have never had that problem again
| since the first day it happned.
|
| Just nice the java process
I was not insuating you were doing something wrong - I
was actualy using your case as an example of why the
default start-freenet.sh should nice the java process
- if anyone who has the desire to fix it noticed I
hope they do.
Or would it be beter if I made the (trivial) patch and
posted it to
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:30PM -0800, Tyler Riddle wrote:
I was not insuating you were doing something wrong - I
was actualy using your case as an example of why the
default start-freenet.sh should nice the java process
- if anyone who has the desire to fix it noticed I
hope they do.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tyler Riddle wrote:
| I was not insuating you were doing something wrong - I
| was actualy using your case as an example of why the
| default start-freenet.sh should nice the java process
| - if anyone who has the desire to fix it noticed I
| hope
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 13:39, you wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:53:45AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
The new load balancing code is a very good thing indeed, but I doubt it
will save individual nodes from massive overload.
Has anyone conclusively figured out the CPU usage issue?
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-admin at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: 28 October 2002 21:09
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Cc: ian at freenetproject.org
> Subject: [freenet-dev] 0.5.0.1 h
21 matches
Mail list logo
