@eyedeekay
&zzz
+FreefallHeavens
+R4SAS
+Romster
+Stormycloud
+cims
+eche|off
+nilbog
+nyaa2pguy
+orignal
+postman
+qend-irc2p
+wodencafe
Arch
Daddy_I2P
Danny
Irc2PGuest10884
Irc2PGuest13668
Irc2PGuest47612
Irc2PGuest69494
Irc2PGuest95973
MatrixBot
NiceBoat
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over
Sisyphus
Sleepy
T3s|4_
aargh4
ac9f
acetone_
ahiru_
anontor
b3t4f4c3___
calamares
duanin2
eyedeekay_
eyedeekay_bnc
gshwk`
i2potus
leopold
lokzz_
mahlay
makoto
marek
n2_
newbie|2
not_bob_afk2
o3d3
pepega
poriori
profetikla
quack
r00tobo
rapidash
rednode
sahil
snex
stormycloud[m]
sublimia
test7363673
tr
uop23ip
x74a6
zelgomer
obscuratus
eyedeekay: PeerSelector is a more involved issue than I first appreciated.
obscuratus
I was reviewing the FloodFillPeerSelector class, and I couldn't see anywhere where it understood how to use any other netDb except for the primary floodfill netdb.
obscuratus
On the plus side, things seem to work OK dispite this being somewhat borked.
obscuratus
We may need to pivot to something like relying on trip-wires for RI coming in the Inbound Message Distributor.
obscuratus
As a work-around, on my testing network, it wouldn't be difficult at all to make sure the subDbs are populated exhaustively with every FF RI.
obscuratus
Or, maybe begin testing the nested netdbs without any RI at all, and make sure nothing breaks when we run that way.
obscuratus
I'm almost running that way now, with only the minimum 3 FF in each subdb.
eyedeekay
Thanks for the update, my next move will probably be in the direction of no RI's in subDb's first