On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Niklas Mehner wrote: > Tavin Cole wrote: > > > Nevertheless, coding the thread pool to resist bugs in the rest of the > > node (and adding a lot of complication to it in the process) seems like > > the wrong approach in the long run. > > You do not like fault tolerant systems !?! > > If freenet fails, I do not want to reboot my machine (which I had to two > times, > because it did not respond anymore). > > Also it is perfectly ok (imho) to have 200 jobs waiting to be > executed, but it's no good running them all at the same time. Use a real JVM that implements its own threads (Kaffe) :) > > The rest of the code should care about not accepting too much work in > the longer term, but should not have to care about short term issues. > > > Switching to a thread pool that doesn't create overflow threads won't > > solve this. It'll just make the node die sooner when the ticker can't > > get any more threads. > > Actually it does. The node does not respond for some time, but after > that it gets back to normal (there might be some dropped connections), > which is much harder, if it accepts much more work, before stopping to > respond. > > Niklas > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
-- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020219/57a96a18/attachment.pgp>
