On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I don't think that the solution to the network overloading is through
> > more effective throttling though. An overloaded Freenet does not decay
> > gracefully it would seem. A more preferable failure mode would be longer
> > waits rather then 99.9
or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
it's making it really hard to insert arg.
(congrats to the developers for shipping something, btw :)
-fish
___
devl mailing list
devl at freenetproject.org
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/m
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:19:29PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> I've been getting lots of RNFs accompanied by my favorite Freenet error
> message,
>
> Attempts were made to contact 0 nodes.
>
> * 0 were totally unreachable.
> * 0 restarted.
> * 0 cleanly rejected.
Are you sure you
>
>
> From:
> fish
> Date:
> Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:55:37 +1100 (EST)
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I don't think that the solution to the network overloading is through
>>>more effective throttling though. An overloaded Freenet does not decay
>>>gracefully it would see
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:25:44PM -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
>
> > From: Matthew Toseland
> > Date: 28 Oct 2002 17:00:13 +
> >
> > Well... we've had reports of the development branch causing 100% cpu
> > usage and high loads, but on the other hand the load balancing code is
> > promising
Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:19:29PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > I've been getting lots of RNFs accompanied by my favorite Freenet error
> > message,
> >
> > Attempts were made to contact 0 nodes.
> >
> > * 0 were totally unreachab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
| Well... we've had reports of the development branch causing 100% cpu
| usage and high loads, but on the other hand the load balancing code is
| promising. If you don't mind living on the edge, upgrade to the
| development bran
I've been getting lots of RNFs accompanied by my favorite Freenet error
message,
Attempts were made to contact 0 nodes.
* 0 were totally unreachable.
* 0 restarted.
* 0 cleanly rejected.
The network load servlet says:
* entries: 50
* globalRequestsPerHour: 4426.84
* l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
| On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:44:48PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
|>I have constantly near 100% usage of freds threads (configured to 200),
|>13500 requests / hour, loadavg about 13 since 0.5 published. Under half
|>of the reques
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
| On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
|
|>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|>Hash: SHA1
|>
|>fish wrote:
|>| or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
|>|
|>| it's making it really hard to insert a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
fish wrote:
| or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
|
| it's making it really hard to insert arg.
Not just you. Nodes are overloaded. I could say freenet is being
slashdotted ;)
|
| (congrats to the developers for shipping something, btw :)
|
|
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:21:11PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > fish wrote:
> > | or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
> > |
> > | it's making it really hard to inser
From:
fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:55:37 +1100 (EST)
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Matthew Toseland wrote:
I don't think that the solution to the network overloading is through
more effective throttling though. An overloaded Freenet does not decay
gracefully it would seem. A mo
>On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:56:49AM +1100, fish wrote:
>> or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
>> it's making it really hard to insert arg.
>This is why I added the desperation code. It's why I tried to delay the
>release to put out a mandatory RC2. But it will go away by itself as
>pe
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:01:23PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:21:11PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > fish wrote:
> > > | or is the
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:03:49PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> | On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:44:48PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> |>I have constantly near 100% usage of freds threads (configured to 200),
> |>13500 requ
Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:19:29PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > I've been getting lots of RNFs accompanied by my favorite Freenet error
> > message,
> >
> > Attempts were made to contact 0 nodes.
> >
> > * 0 were totally unreachable.
> >
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:44:48PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> | On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> |
> |>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> |>Hash: SHA1
> |>
> |>fish wrote:
> |>| or is
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:19:29PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> I've been getting lots of RNFs accompanied by my favorite Freenet error
> message,
>
> Attempts were made to contact 0 nodes.
>
> * 0 were totally unreachable.
> * 0 restarted.
> * 0 cleanly rejected.
Are you sure you
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 05:22:09PM +0100, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:56:49AM +1100, fish wrote:
> >> or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
> >> it's making it really hard to insert arg.
>
> >This is why I added the desperation code. It's why I tried to dela
I've been getting lots of RNFs accompanied by my favorite Freenet error
message,
Attempts were made to contact 0 nodes.
* 0 were totally unreachable.
* 0 restarted.
* 0 cleanly rejected.
The network load servlet says:
* entries: 50
* globalRequestsPerHour: 4426.84
* l
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> fish wrote:
> | or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
> |
> | it's making it really hard to insert arg.
>
> Not just you. Nodes are overloaded. I could say freenet is being
>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:56:49AM +1100, fish wrote:
>
> or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
>
> it's making it really hard to insert arg.
This is why I added the desperation code. It's why I tried to delay the
release to put out a mandatory RC2. But it will go away by itself as
people u
> From: Matthew Toseland
> Date: 28 Oct 2002 17:00:13 +
>
> Well... we've had reports of the development branch causing 100% cpu
> usage and high loads, but on the other hand the load balancing code is
> promising. If you don't mind living on the edge, upgrade to the
> development branch (re
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I don't think that the solution to the network overloading is through
> > more effective throttling though. An overloaded Freenet does not decay
> > gracefully it would seem. A more preferable failure mode would be longer
> > waits rather then 99.9
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 11:44, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> I have constantly near 100% usage of freds threads (configured to 200),
> 13500 requests / hour, loadavg about 13 since 0.5 published. Under half
> of the requests gets answered.
>
> I would say it's totally overloaded.
I'm seeing similar behav
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:25:44PM -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
>
> > From: Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 28 Oct 2002 17:00:13 +
> >
> > Well... we've had reports of the development branch causing 100% cpu
> > usage and high loads, but on the other hand the load balancing co
> From: Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 28 Oct 2002 17:00:13 +
>
> Well... we've had reports of the development branch causing 100% cpu
> usage and high loads, but on the other hand the load balancing code is
> promising. If you don't mind living on the edge, upgrade to the
> dev
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 11:44, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> I have constantly near 100% usage of freds threads (configured to 200),
> 13500 requests / hour, loadavg about 13 since 0.5 published. Under half
> of the requests gets answered.
>
> I would say it's totally overloaded.
I'm seeing similar behav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
| Well... we've had reports of the development branch causing 100% cpu
| usage and high loads, but on the other hand the load balancing code is
| promising. If you don't mind living on the edge, upgrade to the
| development bran
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:01:23PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:21:11PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > fish wrote:
> > > | or is the
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:21:11PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > fish wrote:
> > | or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
> > |
> > | it's making it really hard to inser
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:03:49PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> | On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:44:48PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> |>I have constantly near 100% usage of freds threads (configured to 200),
> |>13500 requ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
| On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:44:48PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
|>I have constantly near 100% usage of freds threads (configured to 200),
|>13500 requests / hour, loadavg about 13 since 0.5 published. Under half
|>of the reques
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:44:48PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> | On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> |
> |>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> |>Hash: SHA1
> |>
> |>fish wrote:
> |>| or is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
| On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
|
|>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|>Hash: SHA1
|>
|>fish wrote:
|>| or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
|>|
|>| it's making it really hard to insert a
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 05:22:09PM +0100, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:56:49AM +1100, fish wrote:
> >> or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
> >> it's making it really hard to insert arg.
>
> >This is why I added the desperation code. It's why I tried to dela
>On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:56:49AM +1100, fish wrote:
>> or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
>> it's making it really hard to insert arg.
>This is why I added the desperation code. It's why I tried to delay the
>release to put out a mandatory RC2. But it will go away by itself as
>pe
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:21:38PM +0200, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> fish wrote:
> | or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
> |
> | it's making it really hard to insert arg.
>
> Not just you. Nodes are overloaded. I could say freenet is being
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
fish wrote:
| or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
|
| it's making it really hard to insert arg.
Not just you. Nodes are overloaded. I could say freenet is being
slashdotted ;)
|
| (congrats to the developers for shipping something, btw :)
|
|
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:56:49AM +1100, fish wrote:
>
> or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
>
> it's making it really hard to insert arg.
This is why I added the desperation code. It's why I tried to delay the
release to put out a mandatory RC2. But it will go away by itself as
people u
or is there RNF's everywhere right now?
it's making it really hard to insert arg.
(congrats to the developers for shipping something, btw :)
-fish
___
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
42 matches
Mail list logo