On Jan 22, 2008 5:53 PM, Juiceman <juiceman69 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 5:20 PM, Robert Hailey <robert at freenetproject.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 22, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> > I have tested it, in the little simulator (20 nodes) and am running
> >
> > this on my node now. The simulator works fine (CHK), my node has
> >
> > locked up once with pInstantReject=100%{Outputbandwidth liability},
> >
> > but I am not sure if it was running pre or post r17192 (forgot to set
> >
> > this.status), so I just restarted it. Given the nature of r17192, the
> >
> > symptoms make sense (thinking that every request is a failure for byte
> >
> > logging).
> >
> >
> > Either way that's a bug we need to deal with...
> >
> >
> > To clarify, I meant that upon realizing the pInstantReject, I restarted
> > it w/ post r17192 for testing; not that I ignored it. Thus far (1 hour, 35k
> > requests) I have not had any problems.
> >
> >
> I ran it yesterday but had to revert back to stable. My node was only
> using 40 or so threads, had 10 "transfers" but had over 400 SSK request
> handlers running! Bandwidth usage was about 50% of normal. It was up for
> at least 4hrs before I killed it.
> It didn't look right to me, and since I run a seednode I couldn't leave it
> like that. It deserves some more testing time in trunk, but I wouldn't
> release it right away.
>
I will load r17200 and see if the problem reoccurs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080122/cead9060/attachment.html>
