Matthew Toseland wrote:
As I understand it this should only happen every 200ms or so (maybe more
often because of other things happening, but it shouldn't tie up the
CPU). Does it tie up the CPU?
No, it does not appear to be tying up the CPU, but it does appear that
at least the two events (for the same peer) included below were 10 ms
apart if I read the log format correctly. In any case, every 200 ms
would be 5 times a second I believe, which seems to be little bit often
based on what I've seen of the problem (messages queues growing into the
thousands because of the problem continuing for a long period (looking
into this problem is what led me to the no-packets-sent-when-backed-off
confusion)).
It does massively flood the logs at NORMAL level. Perhaps the messages
could be pruned from three to one per event and/or the log messages
could be limited even if the attempts are not?
If I understand correctly, the unack'd send pool is 128 messages(?) in
size, but the receive counterpart is 512 messages(?). (It's been a
couple days since I looked at that code.)
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:54:56AM -0500, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
What is the stack trace? At what point in PacketSender are we trying to
send the messages, or is it from somewhere else?
Here's a snippet from a stack trace I got after adding the exception
to the Logger call: [trimmed for reply]
May 16, 2006 13:50:24:844 (freenet.node.PeerNode, PacketSender thread
for 0, NORMAL): Requeueing 83 messages on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 16, 2006 13:50:24:854 (freenet.node.PeerNode, PacketSender thread
for 0, NORMAL): Requeueing 83 messages on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 04:23:05PM -0500, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Check the stack trace. WouldBlockException is thrown when a peer
is so
backlogged that we can't allocate a new packet number. So we
requeue the
messages we need to send, since we have pulled them off the queue in
order to send them, and we can't send them yet.=
OK, it seems I did understand what's going on and apparently
there's not bigger cause than the peer is backlogged, so it looks
like I didn't miss anything (which is good).
What do you think of the waiting between queued message send retry
attempts idea?
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:32:27PM -0500, David Sowder (Zothar)
wrote:
Perhaps we should wait a little bit before trying to resend
queued messages? Perhaps the wait time should be proportional to
the number of messages queued, up to some threshold (maybe
keepalive send frequency)?
According to the source:
public void requeueMessageItems(MessageItem[] messages, int
offset, int length, boolean dontLog) {
// Will usually indicate serious problems
What could cause this? Failure to get acks from a peer for awhile?
May 14, 2006 17:54:59:874
(freenet.support.LimitedRangeIntByteArrayMap, PacketSender thread
for 0, NORMAL):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] WOULD BLOCK:
lockNeverBlock(47574) - minValue = 47446, maxValue = 47446,
maxRange=128
May 14, 2006 17:54:59:874 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler,
PacketSender thread for 0, NORMAL): Caught
freenet.support.WouldBlockException while sending messages,
requeueing remaining messages
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
