[PROXYPER] Personal Proxy 304 Q&A

rc5 at xfiles.nildram.co.uk rc5 at xfiles.nildram.co.uk
Sun Feb 14 23:17:11 EST 1999

That would be a nice feature (at least for *nix) proxies.  newsx does
something similar.  It checks to see if another process does, infact,
exist, and if it does it signals it and it exits.  If it doesn't it
removes the stale lockfile.

For windows, it may be possible, but then again, it would probably not
work :)

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

On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 root at brain.acmelabs.com wrote:

> > The "problem" of buffers getting "locked" with the 300+ proxies and the
> > new need to unlock them should not be considered a weakness.  It is
> > designed as a protection mechanism to attempt to eliminate conditions in
> > which users accidentally start up two instances of the proxy, and have
> > them both transmit the same completed blocks upstream, which was an
> > occasional problem for us, which resulted in duplicated done blocks being
> > reported, and incoming new blocks getting lost.
> Why not use a seperate lockfile? one with a process number inside.
> Maybe the proxy should actually check if there is another proxy running
> instead of assuming and refusing to run. Hmm.. now that would be nice.
> --
> 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