[PROXYPER] Linux 304 PP

rc5 at xfiles.nildram.co.uk rc5 at xfiles.nildram.co.uk
Fri Feb 12 17:12:38 EST 1999

Well, if the 28x proxies didnt lock the buffers that is bad.  If they did
lock their buffers, if you crashed the buffers would remain locked and the
proxy should refuse to start.

Regarding buffer corruption, that might not have been as bad under 28x but
I'm sure it would happen occasionally..

David Taylor
E-Mail:	dtaylor at nildram.co.uk.spam
ICQ:	268004
[Remove .spam from e-mail to reply]

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Jack Cummings wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:26:50PM +0000, rc5 at xfiles.nildram.co.uk wrote:
> > Erm, both of those cons also affect the 280 proxies AFAIK, definately the
> > > (-) it locks it's buffers, which in a crash, they must be unlocked before
> > >     the proxy can start again 
> > > (-) There is a chance, that in a crash, the buffers will become irrepairable
> > >     corrupted
> Hmm. 
> I would disagree. I was running the v2xx proxies for about a year, and I
> doubt that I ever had a problem with the proxy not starting up.  Perhaps
> v3xx just needs some more "maturity". 
> --Jack
> A pound of salt will not sweeten a single cup of tea.
> ====-=-==== Jack (John) Cummings == cummings at nyquist.ee.ualberta.ca ====-=-====
> ========== for pgp public key --- finger the above address, and pray ==========
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net

To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net

More information about the proxyper mailing list