On 2015-06-03 09:24, Neill Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:00:27PM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>> I've recently merged a change to libbitcoin-node which cleans up
>> logging. There are a few misleading log messages pertaining to blocks.
>> There are actually no errors and the behavior I see is normal, so I've
>> changed the descriptions and locations of the messages so they are
>> more
>> obvious and appropriate. The only actual errors I ever see pertain to
>> connection failures, but nothing that appears unusual.
>
> I need to look into your recent updates, as I've been mucking with the
> networking lately and am finally at the point where I can sync testnet
> with an updated protocol version. Haven't tested mainnet yet, but I
> will after some cleanups.
>
>> I think at this point that stall is due to not getting a necessary
>> block, and the memory consumption results from accumulating subsequent
>> blocks into the orphan pool. Sometimes this is steep and other times
>> minimal. When the block is obtained the stall clears, but high memory
>> consumption can severely degrade performance and the process can get
>> killed before the stall clears. I'm going to add some instrumentation
>> now so I can monitor the orphan pool and block requests.
>
> The stalls are still a factor, so we can safely separate them from a
> protocol issue. The currently isolated repeatable stall I can get (on
> my working tree) is when a block is failing to be accepted for some
> reason and it doesn't seem to clear until something drastic happens
> (i.e. at least a rebuild/restart) rather than just waiting and
> waiting. Still haven't narrowed it down any further, but I suspect
> it'll turn up at some point now that we're looking for it.
>
> -Neill.

Wait, this current worst bug known (so that is the stall bug), what is
its worst possible consequence -

LB really operates as it should so it's not visible to the user (bx
etc.).

And it's known to *always* automatically solve soon enough.

So its absolutely worst consequence then is peaks of 1-2GB of more RAM
consumption than really needed?

Thanks