Bryan Marc Schaubach schrieb am 26. March 2005:
>>If you can find a real benchmark that means something, I'd like to try it.
>Just run the latest beta version of Azureus (184.108.40.206-B53) and download a
>popular release of Linux and let it tell you how many times a socket is
Did that (got the B54) and downloaded a popular file with over 1000
seeders and 1800 downloaders. Got no messages at all, all went
smoothly, maxing out my connection.
IMHO you are spreading FUD. Besides they don't call those versions CVS
or beta for no reason. Things might simply not work as expected.
>Each error Azureus generates (as per the developer) is the
>result of 10000 packet losses!!! That is unacceptable!
The more exclamation marks, the less people will take you seriously. I
agree that such behaviour is unacceptable, however your conclusion
(being m0n0wall the culprit) seem a bit far fetched to me. Looks to me
that you are the only one on this mailing list experiencing the
problem. This gives a clue that it might be on your side.
>These disconnects are disrupting the very backbone of a successfull
If m0n0wall disrupted the very backbone of your successfull P2P
activities, you would have discovered that long before the "socket
spin" feature showed up in Azureus. You obviously experienced decent
traffic rates, probably maxing out your bandwidth. Now you get all
excited about the messages from an experimental (!) feature in a beta
CVS version of Azureus?
>I changed to a Fedora Linux kernel and all of my Azureus errors went
So you found some solution or workaround. Nice for you.
>There is a fundamental error("feature") in M0N0Wall/FreeBSD
That fundamental error might as well be in front of the screen, I had
to learn that myself a couple of times when speculating about m0n0
"bugs". There are probably some people using CVS Azureus, yet nobody
experienced those problems. From what I understand from your link to
the forums, this message should not even be seen by a regular user.
>(...) because my local network was loosing too many packets.
There might be other reasons for that packet loss than m0n0.
Kind regards Frederick