On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:51:48AM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > Jano wrote: > >Mmmmm I was wrong. Some of these simulations are ending properly and most > >request are failing with RNF. Even the ones dying because of OOM show > >prevalence of RNF. I'm going to run a more detailed series in the critical > >range where absence of balancing collapses. > > I would guess the RNFs are probably happening because of timeouts - when > a search is not accepted by a peer within a certain amount of time the > handler moves on to the next peer, and returns RNF when it runs out of > peers. Perhaps you could enable logging of timeouts before you run your > series?
Timeouts should not happen with the current code. They do, but they should be rare; pre-emptive reject should generally avoid them. What I want to know is why the bandwidth usage is so low on the network at present. Probably this is some interaction between pre-emptive rejection and sender side load limiting (and maybe backoff). As I've explained I'm skeptical about the results appearing to show that backoff is always bad... > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061207/aeead916/attachment.pgp>
