Re: [META:130] bounce us server?

["Carlos Y. Villalpando" <unbelver@brain.jpl.nasa.gov>]

Quoting James Cameron <quozl@us.netrek.org>:
> 
> Carlos, don't you think these incorrect host names should go away?  

Hmm, quick scan of the code reveals nothing that removes a server from
the listing based on server.down_time or server.last_update.  If no
updates have been received, it will default to normal checks 60
minutes after the last solicit packet.  Bouncing removes the bogus
entries because the checkpoint file is compared with the metarc.

Hmm.  Quick look through Vanilla source tree, the solicit call is in
daemonII.c.  Doesn't the daemon exit when there are no players?  I can
see a vicious circle happening if we automatically de-list.  People
quit, daemon stops soliciting, metaserver de-lists, nobody sees it in
the metaserver output, therefore nobody joins, even though the server
is still up.

Or make the server.next_update set an update for a week or two later,
and if last_update is more than a week or two, drop it?  Hmm some of
these servers are pretty empty.


> I guess they all have the same IP address, hence they appear to be
> updated at the same rate.

Hmmm yeah.  I'm thinking he never did a before-and-after check before
he complained.  When I re-started mine, this.host.name and
blackhole.icoa.com never re-appeared.   I explained things to him when
I first misled him.  Maybe since I goofed once, he didn't believe me
anymore.  *grin*  I also gave him the new solicit.c.  He's using the
tarball of 2.9pl2 which has the bug that crashed continuum.

--Carlos V.