On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 03:11:11PM +0200, Sebastian Sp?th wrote: > Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > > I would like to note here that it is NOT a good idea to announce > > yourself to a lot of different peers. Ideally it should be just one, > > though two or three is probably a good idea for redundancy. More is > > directly harmful. > > > In this case Freenet does not the right thing. I guess it's the default > setting announcementPeers=10 which should be lowered then, right? (/me > is not sure what the setting is precisely for)
IIRC, that sets the total number of nodes that the announcements should reach, so the HTL on the announcement messages would be <announcementPeers> / <number announced to> The value is in fact very low, and was set as such because otherwise they don't have a chance to finish on the tiny new networks. > >>b) in case of a failed-announcement > >>(which was the case in 99% during the last days) you will get the same > >>stuff all over after 5 sec, 10 sec, ..., 3600 sec. (don't quote me on > >>the intervals though). Which can make it quite a lot of entries. > > > > So we'll go with the time honored Freenet tradition of fixing the > > symptom (or in this case the WARNING) rather than fixing the problem... > > > I do not feel it's fixing the symptoms in this case as the error > messages of failure will still be part of the log. I do think that > announcement *scheduling* is a rather minor event (despite of actually > performing the announcement which should be part of the "normal" log). It's not like it matters. > > Sebastian > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
