@eyedeekay
&zzz
+FreefallHeavens
+R4SAS
+RN_
+Romster
+StormyCloud
+cims
+eche|off
+hagen
+nilbog
+nyaa2pguy
+orignal
+postman
+snex
+synergy3582
+wodencafe
Arch
BarbedVertex
Danny
Holmes
Irc2PGuest20264
Irc2PGuest28384
Irc2PGuest34440
Irc2PGuest6967
Irc2PGuest79715
NiceBoat
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over1
Sleepy
U1F642
Zapek
aargh4
ac9f
acetone_
ahiru
ananas______
anontor
calamares
dr4wd3
duanin2
eyedeekay_
eyedeekay_bnc
fa
leopold
mahlay
makoto
marek
marek22k
n2
not_bob_afk
poriori
profetikla
qend-irc2p_
r00tobo
rapidash
test7363673
thetia
uop23ip
vivid_reader56
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