13:11 < jrandom2p> 0) hi
13:11 < jrandom2p> 1) 0.6.0.2
13:11 < jrandom2p> 2) roadmap update
13:11 < jrandom2p> 3) ???
13:11 < jrandom2p> 0) hi
13:11 * jrandom2p waves
13:11 <+detonate> hi
13:11 < jrandom2p> weekly status notes up @ http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-August/000839.html
13:12 < jrandom2p> ok, jumping in briefly to [1-2] before the freeforall..
13:12 < jrandom2p> 1) 0.6.0.2
13:12 < jrandom2p> its out. and stuff
13:12 < jrandom2p> anyone have any questions/comments/concerns w/ 0.6.0.2?
13:13 < jrandom2p> if not, moving on to 2) roadmap update
13:13 < jrandom2p> the, er, roadmap has been updated. and stuff ;)
13:14 < duck> you aussie
13:14 <+bla> jrandom: There still are intermittent problems contacting a destination, even when it's normally up
13:14 * postman can second this
13:14 * detonate can third that
13:14 <+bla> jrandom: E.g., forum.i2p works fine, then after a few minutes it doesn't, and requires a few reloads
13:15 * bla firsted it ;)
13:15 < jrandom2p> hmm, aye, i've heard reports of that. with 0.6.0.2 as well, right?
13:16 <+postman> indeed sir
13:16 <+bla> Yes, 0.6.0.2
13:16 <+bla> Could be netDb trouble, or poor selection of peers to put in tunnels (or something else)
13:16 < jrandom2p> 'k
13:17 < jrandom2p> the tunnel peer selection has been pretty bad lately, as has netDb store flooding
13:17 < jrandom2p> (see your /oldstats.jsp for tunnel request failure counts)
13:18 <+bla> Now that we use UDP/SSU, peer classification seems to be better than before: a number of peers I _know_ to be fast, usually show up under the "fast" section on the profile pafe
13:19 < jrandom2p> nice
13:19 < jrandom2p> 0.6.0.2 added some tunnel rejection code based on the netDb that it should have been doing before (refusing to join if we can't find the next hop), so the increase in rejections is expected
13:19 <+bla> Though I really should get going at the classification algorithms again... ;)
13:20 < jrandom2p> i've been doing profile/stat analysis, but no solid results yet
13:21 < jrandom> that would be cool bla :)
13:25 < jrandom2p> ok, anything else on 2) roadmpa update? :)
13:26 < jrandom2p> if not, moving on to 3) ???
13:26 <+detonate> do you think it would be useful to shitlist peers with high failure/duprecv rates compared to the mode?
13:27 < jrandom> hmm, i'm not sure about that - if the failure/dup rates are too high to be useful, we should just transfer slowly and carefully
13:27 < jrandom> as long as messages are getting through, messages are getting through
13:28 < jrandom> there's a reason why we haven't used stats on direct peer communication as part of our profiling - depending upon them would make us vulnerable to some easy and powerful attacks (acting differently to different peers and see who uses you, etc)
13:29 <+detonate> hmm
13:29 <+detonate> ok
13:29 < jrandom> but perhaps we need to drop sessions for peers who are in such congesHTTP/1.1 200 OK Connection: close Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Etag: "fa4196dcde1ae948329e4dd02e7f6cf00852481d" Access-Control-Expose-Headers: Content-Disposition Cache-Control: public, max-age=21600, no-transform Content-Disposition: inline; filename="meeting142.html"; filename*=UTF-8''meeting142.html X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 04:59:11 GMT Last-Modified: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:22:36 GMT Content-Length: 7205 X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN X-Cache-Status: HIT X-Cache-Age: 0 {% extends "_layout.html" %} {% block title %}I2P Development Meeting 142{% endblock %} {% block content %}
13:11 < jrandom2p> 0) hi
13:11 < jrandom2p> 1) 0.6.0.2
13:11 < jrandom2p> 2) roadmap update
13:11 < jrandom2p> 3) ???
13:11 < jrandom2p> 0) hi
13:11 * jrandom2p waves
13:11 <+detonate> hi
13:11 < jrandom2p> weekly status notes up @ http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-August/000839.html
13:12 < jrandom2p> ok, jumping in briefly to [1-2] before the freeforall..
13:12 < jrandom2p> 1) 0.6.0.2
13:12 < jrandom2p> its out. and stuff
13:12 < jrandom2p> anyone have any questions/comments/concerns w/ 0.6.0.2?
13:13 < jrandom2p> if not, moving on to 2) roadmap update
13:13 < jrandom2p> the, er, roadmap has been updated. and stuff ;)
13:14 < duck> you aussie
13:14 <+bla> jrandom: There still are intermittent problems contacting a destination, even when it's normally up
13:14 * postman can second this
13:14 * detonate can third that
13:14 <+bla> jrandom: E.g., forum.i2p works fine, then after a few minutes it doesn't, and requires a few reloads
13:15 * bla firsted it ;)
13:15 < jrandom2p> hmm, aye, i've heard reports of that. with 0.6.0.2 as well, right?
13:16 <+postman> indeed sir
13:16 <+bla> Yes, 0.6.0.2
13:16 <+bla> Could be netDb trouble, or poor selection of peers to put in tunnels (or something else)
13:16 < jrandom2p> 'k
13:17 < jrandom2p> the tunnel peer selection has been pretty bad lately, as has netDb store flooding
13:17 < jrandom2p> (see your /oldstats.jsp for tunnel request failure counts)
13:18 <+bla> Now that we use UDP/SSU, peer classification seems to be better than before: a number of peers I _know_ to be fast, usually show up under the "fast" section on the profile pafe
13:19 < jrandom2p> nice
13:19 < jrandom2p> 0.6.0.2 added some tunnel rejection code based on the netDb that it should have been doing before (refusing to join if we can't find the next hop), so the increase in rejections is expected
13:19 <+bla> Though I really should get going at the classification algorithms again... ;)
13:20 < jrandom2p> i've been doing profile/stat analysis, but no solid results yet
13:21 < jrandom> that would be cool bla :)
13:25 < jrandom2p> ok, anything else on 2) roadmpa update? :)
13:26 < jrandom2p> if not, moving on to 3) ???
13:26 <+detonate> do you think it would be useful to shitlist peers with high failure/duprecv rates compared to the mode?
13:27 < jrandom> hmm, i'm not sure about that - if the failure/dup rates are too high to be useful, we should just transfer slowly and carefully
13