[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[leafnode-list] Re: Suppressing "no servers found" error message



On 18 Apr,  
     Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Brian D <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > This worked well (except for a hiccough caused by the testing client's
> > clock suddenly losing 4 years!) and I'm now using leafnode2. It seems
> > faster (or perhaps it's just through having a smaller spool for now). 
> 
> Good to hear - I assume the clock issue isn't related to leafnode though
> :-)

It was nothing to do with leafnode. The behavior seemed different to
leafnode1. It refused to accept the incorrectly dated postings, rather than
accepting them and placing them in failed.postings after refusal by the
upstream servers. An improvement once I figured out that it wasn't a leafnode
problem. 

> 
> Texpire and fetchnews should be a bit faster in some respects; leafnode
> (the server part) itself will probably (haven't benchmarked, but I don't
> recall pertinent optimizations) not make a lot of difference.
> 
> > Thanks for the warning of not trying to mix the installations. I didn't
> > realise my old install was from 2004, so it's worked well. I'm looking
> > forward to the later version being as stable.
> 
> For some people on the list, it is behaving "stable" in some sense.
> 
> It's just that there are two kinds of stable: "stable" in the sense that
> it doesn't crash (leafnode-2 it should be) and the other "stable" in the
> sense that none of the interfaces (configuration, command line) or data
> layouts (spool format) change.  The latter is something I don't want
> leafnode-2 to be yet, because there's so much on the table to be done, I
> want to reserve the right to make a radical change if needed -- and
> that's why I call it "alpha" so as to prevent distributors from
> packaging it for stable distributions. I probably wouldn't mind if it
> were in "extra" or "add-on" or "experimental" or "unstable" repositories
> if distributors can keep the package up to date without major delays or
> policy clashes.
> 
The first sense. I hadn't realised I'd last updated Leafnode1 in 2004,so
obviously no problems had occurred since then.  I'll clear out the old
version shortly leaving room to independently update to later versions when
they are available. I currently still have leafnode1 available on a different
port and it seems to co-exist ok.

-- 
  Brian Duffell  VirtualRiscPCSA  | RISC OS 4.39 Adjust
  Darlington Dolphin Masters ASC  | <www.darlingtonmasters.org.uk>
-- 
_______________________________________________
leafnode-list mailing list
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/mailman/listinfo/leafnode-list
http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/