Juiceman wrote:
>With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker
>is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many
>connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any
>number of connections you have.
It's currently trivialy ea
I wanted to ask for help reducing the load of my node to a reasonable amount. I use
unstable version 6422 on an old Win98SE box with 450mhz and 256MB RAM and let that
comp run 24 hours a day. I limited upload bandwith to 7 kb/s, because some familly
members want to use the internet connection (D
>Thank you for running a node. Please remember to
>upgrade daily. Right now connection multiplexing
>is being debugged. This allows us to keep only
>one connection open between nodes and still send
>more than one file at once.
>
>Just now, it is probably necessary to restart the
>node twice a da
>> I just do not know, where to report this, (probably it was noticed already
>> anyway...), but the bandwith limiting in unstable version 6430 seems to be broken:
>>
>> Current upstream bandwidth usage 14576 bytes/second (145,8%)
>>
>> And the node is not QueryRejecting or something like that and
Just made a update to 6457, and now my node is some kind of doomed... :/ For some
reason the node removed all entrys from the routing table and also does not get any
new entrys. At least it did not stop working, since it gets enough inbound
connections, but...I really loved that routing table :(
thx
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
thx
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
After upgrading to 6459 I got this situation:
Current routingTime 18ms
Current messageSendTimeRequest 0ms
Pooled threads running jobs 22 (20%)
Current upstream bandwidth usage 211 bytes/second (2,1%)
Estimated external pSearchFailed (based only on QueryRejections due to load):
1.8249762470488
After updating to 6469 I always get this log entry right after starting the node,
before the first request is made.
12:13:07 Size was wrong reading in SimpleDataObjectStore
Until now I was also not able to run the node for longer then one or two hours, while
it before would run for more then o
In einer eMail vom Di, 10. Feb. 2004 12:44 MEZ schreibt "Niklas Bergh" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
>This is prbably not causing you trouble.. I have committed some logging
>changes that will better say what the cause is now (will incluse a
>callstack and what the atual sizes are). Let me know what it sa
In einer eMail vom Di, 10. Feb. 2004 15:57 MEZ schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>In einer eMail vom Di, 10. Feb. 2004 12:44 MEZ schreibt "Niklas Bergh" <[EMAIL
>PROTECTED]>:
>
>>This is prbably not causing you trouble.. I have committed some logging
>>changes that will better say what the cause is now
In einer eMail vom So, 15. Feb. 2004 21:43 MEZ schreibt "Paul Derbyshire" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
>On 15 Feb 2004 at 18:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Die E-Mail, die Sie am Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:14:02 -0500 an [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> gesendet haben, konnte nicht zugestellt werden, da die E-Mail Adre
I yesterday executed the update.sh script and got that way the 6495 build. But I had
to "reinstall" the old build a hour later, because with 6495 build the webinterface
stopped working. At least I could not access it with any network computer I tried, and
that worked all builds before. I cannot
>I will try another update now, but I wanted to report this,
>since I have not read of a similar problem with that build until now in the
>support group.
It failed, too. Just now I run that build without the webinterface, but I will switch
back to the old build, soon.
>>I will try another update now, but I wanted to report this,
>>since I have not read of a similar problem with that build until now in the
>>support group.
>
>It failed, too. Just now I run that build without the >webinterface, but I will
>switch back to the old build, soon.
It works again in 60
In einer eMail vom Sa, 13. März 2004 3:52 MEZ schreibt Chris Gentile <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
>
>I am also struggling with 5074.
>
>Here is my freenet.conf:
>ipAddress=www.gentilehome.com
>listenPort=27882
>seedNodes=seednodes.ref
>outputBandwidthLimit=48000
>storeSize=3G
>overloadHigh=0.6
>overloadL
In einer eMail vom Di, 16. März 2004 17:28 MEZ schreibt "Niklas Bergh" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
>Fwolff said:
>
>>And to the philosophy of some devs: "RAM is cheap"
>>New SDRAM will be detected only with half of it's normal size or even not
>detected at all in "old" computers
>
>When I was having pro
In einer eMail vom Fr, 23. Apr. 2004 5:45 MEZ schreibt Galen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi Freenet People,
>
>I'd like to hear about your experience with and uses for freenet. I'm
>interested in those that use freenet. How "usable" is it? What is your
>setup? What kind of performance do you get? What
I wanted to report, that I get currently a lot of the following error messages:
"Action cannot be taken after termination java.lang.Exception: debug"
"Please close() me manually in finalizer: Key: *removed* Buffer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
*removed*:temp:*removed* New: true ( 0 of 262460 read)
java.lan
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 15:25 MEZ schreibt Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:16:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 13:03 MEZ schreibt "Niklas Bergh" <[EMAIL
>> PROTECTED]>:
>> >There seems to be a whole bunch of different
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 16:26 MEZ schreibt "Niklas Bergh" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
>> >> This behaviour ends normally
>> >> in a Java VM crash after some time
>> >
>> >What do you mean with crash?
>> >
>> Look at the attachment, I attached some of the error messages of the past
>months.
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 17:40 MEZ schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 16:26 MEZ schreibt "Niklas Bergh" <[EMAIL
>PROTECTED]>:
>As soon as a new build with your logging improvements gets out I will report what is
>loged then, thanks for your help so far.
In einer eMail vom Mi, 28. Apr. 2004 14:28 MEZ schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>The Error ""Action cannot be taken after termination" does not happen anymore after
>the update to 60079, strange. (and nice ;) )
Have to correct me, they reappeared. For some reason not one of them occured at first,
so
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 15:44 MEZ schreibt Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 01:57:41PM +0200, Rama Jagerman wrote:
>> Current upstream bandwidth usage 164677 bytes/second (164.7%)
[...]
>average out to no more than the target. HOWEVER, there is a hard limit
>of 140
I have not seen any message relating to the 60083 build at the, so I thought that I
should report this, although I cannot imagine that the devs did not notice until now.
Until now freenet got some requests and used the available bandwith at least to a
reasonable amount. Now after running 60083 f
It seems so, as if the snapshots do not get updated anymore. At least the
unstable-latest.jar (or similiar, the file which gets downloaded from the update
script) is still version 60103, although 60105 was already announced.
___
Support mailing list
[EM
26 matches
Mail list logo
