[freenet-support] 5086- Sucess

2004-07-26 Thread John Huttley
I'm having great success with this, toad. My home node was previously moribund. Now its as full of life as a spring lamb. A minor quibble is on the stats reported on a failure. I don't have an example on the screen, but it goes like.. Attempts were made to contact 3 nodes 1 cleanly rejected 2

[freenet-support] 5086 Funny stats

2004-07-26 Thread John Huttley
Hi toad, here I've the real thing Attempts were made to contact 8 nodes. * 0 were totally unreachable. * 8 restarted. * 0 cleanly rejected. * 39 backed off. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[freenet-support] Re: new stable

2004-07-26 Thread Wayne McDougall
vinyl1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Every time we download a new release, we hope this will be the one and all the content will zip to our machines with lightening speed. Ok, forgive me if this has been discussed before (and please point me to this discussion), but I've been wondering what are

Re: [freenet-support] 5086 Funny stats

2004-07-26 Thread Trevor Smith
John; 39 backed off means 39 other nodes *would* have been contacted; but due to max queries or recent rejects; we did not contact them; but rather skipped them and continued looking for a node that we are still permitted to route to. (call this load balancing / overload avoidance or whatever you

Re: [freenet-support] 5086 Funny stats

2004-07-26 Thread John Huttley
Thanks for explaining it Trevor. I thought a backoff happened after attempting to contact them. I must be confusing it with a reject. Regards John On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 02:50, Trevor Smith wrote: John; 39 backed off means 39 other nodes *would* have been contacted; but due to max queries

Re: [freenet-support] Re: new stable

2004-07-26 Thread Toad
I don't think so. There are issues with routing (or there were; there are more but I'm not sure how to approach them), there are issues with connections, with the balance between load and routing, and so on... Most of these can eventually be solved. On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:33:07AM +, Wayne

Re: [freenet-support] Connection bug in recent builds

2004-07-26 Thread Toad
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:14:41PM +0200, Marc wrote: Hi toad, you wrote Recent builds, both stable and unstable, have a bug that causes connections to fail with crypto related errors. This is probably not due to NativeBigInteger, as it happens on stable, which doesn't have NBI. Iakin has

Re: [freenet-support] start-freenet.sh patch to disable NPTL on SuSE Linux

2004-07-26 Thread Toad
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 03:20:04AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:06:23PM +0100, Toad wrote: Will be committed to unstable soon. Having read http://people.redhat.com/drepper/assumekernel.html I think we can do away with the distribution check and set LD_ASSUME_KERNEL

[freenet-support] Weekend releases!?

2004-07-26 Thread Rudolf Krist
Hello Toad! I think that it is a very bad Idea to publish a new official build, when in one day or two you will go to weekend, especially if it is a stable build! When there is a serious bug, it will take much longer to solve the problem. And the network can rather go broken, like -- I think --

[freenet-support] CPU pegging at 100% since 5085

2004-07-26 Thread Mike Z
Since upgrading to 5085 (and 5086), Freenet is using up a huge amount of processor time, to the point where the web interface no longer even responds. This doesn't happen every start, but once it occurs, freenet has to be killed and restarted. It sometimes happens when first started, sometimes