Burstnation & Network situation & Local Wallets
-
Well it started again and i noticed it just in time to test/monitor the following ...
- Memory usage of wallet increases on currently ~3000-4000 unconfirmed transactions.
http://localhost:8125/burst?requestType=getUnconfirmedTransactionIds
This may cause a wallet on a weak pc /vm to crash/stuck ... could see 'dev pool' stuck exactly as the spam transactions got send ... i watched my memory usage and it went up ~20% from 3.8GB to 5GB+. - I send test transaction on the block, the spam started with higher transaction fee ... and one a few blocks later ... both got confirmed without problem ... so we need to enable configure transaction fee on reward assignment, asset exchange and other wallet features ... to enable everyone contain using wallet even on massive unconfirmed transactions in the pipeline.
I tested using reward assignment with higher fee, but it seams hardcoded to expect 1 BURST, that needs to be fixed.
- Memory usage of wallet increases on currently ~3000-4000 unconfirmed transactions.
-
@luxe put in my mod for reasigment there you can enter fee ;) and yes i have noticed increase of ram usage gone from 200 something up to now 750MB thats at least triple
-
@LithStud Have you ever tested doing reward assignment with more than 1 burst fee? Beside from that you can configure it? If that works, i did not say anything, but as far as i remember i got a error message from server.
-
@luxe didnt understand you last question :) i made a mod just for these things so people at least could change their pools in peace, its fully integrated into wallet itself :)
-
my first time having "stuck " issue with my personal wallet today , just happen to be running Xplotter an ram spiked max on the comp for a few min, comp is unfroze now but wallet is hung with a spining loading symbol when i tryed to go into asset exchange.
-
@luxe nice work
-
@Gibsalot rarely that same problem i have managed to simulate some of the times. basically the wallet UI get overhelmed at some point (havent tracked where and why yet) and any api calls get canceled after 30s (could be that api itself is doesnt respond in that time as well)
-
@LithStud If you do rewardAssignment with more than 1 BURST fee, to get it processed with higher prio ... you get following exception (in this case 5BURST fee):
{ "requestProcessingTime":1, "error":"Reward recipient assisnment transaction must have 0 send amount and 1 fee: {\"senderPublicKey\":\"612bb19b348871561d9618bd35f588fb729eb0b4e5587fc904618d900c3de978\",\"signature\":null,\"feeNQT\":500000000,\"type\":20,\"version\":1,\"ecBlockId\":\"11635270544147337439\",\"attachment\":{\"version.RewardRecipientAssignment\":1},\"subtype\":0,\"amountNQT\":0,\"recipient\":\"21869187791279079\",\"ecBlockHeight\":331024,\"deadline\":1440,\"timestamp\":80073380}" }So i fear, making it adjustable in gui is not enough :-(
-
holly shit havent tried it so didnt know that, i assumed since there is fee possible to enter it should work, didnt expect it hardcoded o_O
-
@LithStud Yep i did not expect that, too. There is no good reason for this behavior, and i should be not that hard to fix it in next version.
-
i am looking at the java code, so far doesnt seem like its there, looking further
-
src/java/nxt/TransactionType.java line 1767
(omg so much lines code github could not provide deeplinking it ...)if(transaction.getAmountNQT() != 0 || transaction.getFeeNQT() != Constants.ONE_NXT) { throw new NxtException.NotValidException( "Reward recipient assisnment transaction must have 0 send amount and 1 fee: " + transaction.getJSONObject()); }We just need to remove
|| transaction.getFeeNQT() != Constants.ONE_NXTand change the text ^^ it will make the fix and test it.
-
@luxe yeah that the one, why the fuck would anyone hardcode it? O_O
Text should read "Not enough BURST to set new reward recipient" i think that s a descriptive enough
-
@LithStud the pressure on the dev to find a solution to mine on pools with your own plots was quite high. Also there were almost no transactions per block to that time.
-
@daWallet AHH good old :D i will patch it up for now :D gonna fix it later :D
-
Yes bugs/mistakes happen ... gladly we are in the situation that we took over the code and can improve/fix it ... @LithStud it will not help you if it is just fixed in one wallet instance ... other wallets will not confirm that transaction cause they still have the other code i guess. Also i want to check for side effects and stuff ... we will fix this in next version. Maybe together with other related things.
-
@luxe well mod itself still is usefull as it gives easy and understandable way to change recipient, just that fee wont work, also by the time itds done i will allready rewriten code so it is a part of existing wallet and not injected by mod :)
-
Glad to see this kind of exchanges happening here, trying to get things fixed for real. This is what makes Burst great again :)
-
@vExact said in Burstnation & Network situation & Local Wallets:
Glad to see this kind of exchanges happening here, trying to get things fixed for real. This is what makes Burst great again :)
Make it even GREATER!!



