On 07/01/14 05:26, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 01/06/2014 09:00 PM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> TheSeeker points out a bug in negtype 10 that only affects seednodes. >> We're investigating and may have to release another update. > Our current understanding is that when a 1458 node attempts to connect > to a seed node with negtype 10 the seed node logs an error, and the > client seems to fall back to another negtype. This means on seed nodes > there is log spew of > > (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port XXXXXX, > ERROR): Unknown neg type: 10 > > but seeding still seems to function. > > TheSeeker wrote a patch that avoids the message and presumably allows > seed nodes to use negtype 10 with clients. [0] Given that this does not > disrupt network function and only affects seed nodes, (and even then not > severely) it would make sense to me to wait until the next (hopefully > soon) release to include this fix. So has the protocol been tested with seednodes? That is one thing that is absolutely vital when deploying a new negtype; there are some important changes when talking to seednodes. > In terms of the code that allowed this to happen I think it'd be good to > have an isValidNegtype() function to avoid duplication of such > conditions and add seed node tests. Are there longer-running seed node > tests already that aren't part of the standard test suite? Would it be > appropriate to run them when making a release? AFAIK you have to test it manually at the moment. :( > Is the load on seed nodes after an update problematically high? Would it > help to have nodes wait a random interval after fetching an update > before restarting? Yes. There are bugs for this.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
