Evan Daniel wrote:
> Persistent-temp is not part of the datastore, and is not expected to
> stay within the datastore size limit. It's used to hold data from
> partially completed downloads. In theory, it will only grow to be
> slightly larger than your total queue size. However, there appear to
Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:03:25 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>> Dennis Nezic wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:28:36 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>>>> 2) Error message on the file sharing pages:
>>>> Internal error
>
Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:28:36 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>> 2) Error message on the file sharing pages:
>> Internal error
>> Internal error
>> Return to queue page.
>> [The "queue page" gives this error message too]
>
I found that Freenet (Build #1239) happily expands the datastore over
the configured size limit. (Disk space is the limit...)
This leads to very interesting behaviour when the file system gets full
and I would like your help to solve the following two issues:
1) Error message on all pages:
The au
VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote:
> This point has already been answered, but i feel that there is a
> point that can be made here by answering it again.
>
> When you fetch something from the regular internet, the request is
> easily traceable back to you. The warning that you see tells you that
> for th
VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote:
> Brian Mearns wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:54 AM, SmallSister development
>> wrote:
>>> Brian Mearns wrote:
>>>> I understand the basic architecture of Freenet and how it protects
>>>> contributors, but I'm c
Brian Mearns wrote:
> I understand the basic architecture of Freenet and how it protects
> contributors, but I'm concerned that the files themselves might
> contain identifying information about the source of the file. In
> particular, for audio files such as MP3, Ogg Vorbis, and Flac. Does
> a
>> Another issue: I have several downloads that report being at 100%,
>> but they'll never report completed; even over freenet restarts.
>> This could be caused by a freenet crash while in the process of
>> writing out the files. (using db4o)
>
> When were they added? If you add a new download for
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Freenet 0.7 build 1212 is now available. Please upgrade.
[...]
> 1212: - Recently we have had several reports of bogus claims by peers
> that the auto-update key has been blown. The nodes would not
> transfer the revocation key, because they didn't have it, they would
> j
theymos wrote:
> I just got this message. What do I do?
>
> Auto-update key blown according to 1 peer(s)!
>
> One or more of your peers says that the auto-update key is blown!
> This means that an attacker may know the private key for the
> auto-update system and can therefore cause your node to
> One or more of your peers says that the auto-update key is blown!
> This means that an attacker may know the private key for the
> auto-update system and can therefore cause your node to run code of
> his choice (if you update)! The auto-update system has been disabled.
> It is also possible that
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:45:29 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>>>>>> I get the error message:
>>>>>>> One or more of your node's peers have never connected in the two
>>>>>>> weeks
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:45:29 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>>>>>> I get the error message:
>>>>>>> One or more of your node's peers have never connected in the two
>>>>>>> weeks
Luke771 wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:42:46 -0500
> Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:45:29 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>>> I get the error message:
>>>> One or more of your node's peers have never connected in the two
>>&g
I get the error message:
> One or more of your node's peers have never connected in the two
> weeks since they were added. Consider removing them since they are
> marginally affecting performance (wasting packets talking to nodes
> that aren't there).
A quick investigation identified the culprit:
Luke771 wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:42:46 -0500
> Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:45:29 +0100, SmallSister development wrote:
>>> I get the error message:
>>>> One or more of your node's peers have never connected in the two
>>&g
I get the error message:
> One or more of your node's peers have never connected in the two
> weeks since they were added. Consider removing them since they are
> marginally affecting performance (wasting packets talking to nodes
> that aren't there).
A quick investigation identified the culprit:
ade either (I waited for about 15 minutes, 1195
> downloaded within a few minutes). Then I ran update.sh, which went without
> trouble execpt for the fact that the node did not restart by itself, I had
> to kill it.
>
> Now I'm connected to 1 opennet peer.
>
> On Tu
Apparently build 1196 has been pushed out; the common "A new stable
version of Freenet is available" message box has appeared on the message
list.
Unfortunately the "Update Now" button in the box only brings me to the
proxy home page and does not seem to do anything but bringing me to the
freenet
ade either (I waited for about 15 minutes, 1195
> downloaded within a few minutes). Then I ran update.sh, which went without
> trouble execpt for the fact that the node did not restart by itself, I had
> to kill it.
>
> Now I'm connected to 1 opennet peer.
>
> On Tu
Apparently build 1196 has been pushed out; the common "A new stable
version of Freenet is available" message box has appeared on the message
list.
Unfortunately the "Update Now" button in the box only brings me to the
proxy home page and does not seem to do anything but bringing me to the
freenet
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Freenet 0.7 build 1194 is now available. Please upgrade, this will be
> mandatory on Friday. Some fairly substantial changes:
It looks like the infamous "# peers forcibly disconnected" bug is gone
in this release, thanks and congratulations! (I see far less package
handl
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Freenet 0.7 build 1194 is now available. Please upgrade, this will be
> mandatory on Friday. Some fairly substantial changes:
It looks like the infamous "# peers forcibly disconnected" bug is gone
in this release, thanks and congratulations! (I see far less package
handl
Sorry Matthew,
within an hour of restarting my node I got my first disconnect. I am
running 1188, and it seems all peers are running that same version.
I got several copies of this error message in my logs:
Dec 06, 2008 10:48:30:870 (freenet.node.PacketTracker, UdpSocketHandler
for port 37365(2)
Sorry Matthew,
within an hour of restarting my node I got my first disconnect. I am
running 1188, and it seems all peers are running that same version.
I got several copies of this error message in my logs:
Dec 06, 2008 10:48:30:870 (freenet.node.PacketTracker, UdpSocketHandler
for port 37365(2)
Freenet 1180 refuses to start; here is an extract from the wrapper.log file:
STATUS | wrapper | 2008/11/19 10:06:54 | Launching a JVM...
ERROR | wrapper | 2008/11/19 10:06:54 | JVM exited while loading the
application.
INFO | jvm 5| 2008/11/19 10:06:54 | Exception in thread "main"
java.la
Freenet 1180 refuses to start; here is an extract from the wrapper.log file:
STATUS | wrapper | 2008/11/19 10:06:54 | Launching a JVM...
ERROR | wrapper | 2008/11/19 10:06:54 | JVM exited while loading the
application.
INFO | jvm 5| 2008/11/19 10:06:54 | Exception in thread "main"
java.la
Hello,
I've noted that freesites that are recently updated (The Ultimate
FreeNet Index) appear broken.
My personal freesite (that was inserted with jSite after the
announcement of the "tar.gz" sites) shows the same problem.
Peter.
Hello,
I've noted that freesites that are recently updated (The Ultimate
FreeNet Index) appear broken.
My personal freesite (that was inserted with jSite after the
announcement of the "tar.gz" sites) shows the same problem.
Peter.
___
Support mailing li
29 matches
Mail list logo
