On 10/03/2017 10:28 p.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 10/03/2017 6:36 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> does it have sense to run pinger without having cache peers configured?
>>>
>>> if I get the "Network DB Statistics:" output properly, it seems that
>>> 33% of
>>> hosts is unreacha
On 10/03/2017 6:36 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
does it have sense to run pinger without having cache peers configured?
if I get the "Network DB Statistics:" output properly, it seems that 33% of
hosts is unreachable.
On 10.03.17 08:33, Amos Jeffries wrote:
The code using it is called
On 10/03/2017 6:36 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> does it have sense to run pinger without having cache peers configured?
>
> if I get the "Network DB Statistics:" output properly, it seems that 33% of
> hosts is unreachable.
>
The code using it is called peer-selection, but t
Hello,
does it have sense to run pinger without having cache peers configured?
if I get the "Network DB Statistics:" output properly, it seems that 33% of
hosts is unreachable.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertisi
