I’m creating an issue for this. When you reset the 2.1.1 daemon does the value reset to the same value reported by 2.0.3 correct?
1 Like
I will check that.
I can confirm the difference between the two clients re total parked. Seeing the same difference in my clients (not daemons)
Hi everyone-
So the 2.1.x release has been worked forward for quite some time. Many high-priority defects have been fixed since the release candidate was made available – since when the team took a step back on pushing 2.1 due to quality issues. These are on the “Download_optimizations_r2” on Bitbucket.
The improvements so far include:
- deadlocks when starting the app / reindexing have been fixed
- issues surrounding wallet unlocking have been fixed
- greatly improved memory usage and footprint (by keeping a subset of the chain in memory)
- greatly optimized download performance
This code is being used by some on the production network and is showing stability.
That being said, there is more to do. The remaining issues are lesser impact, but must have be further diagnosed and have solutions so that we can consider the codebase ready for the next release candidate:
- assertion fails that have resulted in crashes when using the GUI
- inaccuracies in the UI: nubits parked, NSR shown in the UI
- continued high memory usage in long-running / highly-connected nodes
If anybody has detailed “steps to reproduce” the above defects, I’d be greatly appreciative.
Specifically to my efforts, it has been a mix at learning the codebase, setting up multiple dev and test environments (with repeatable processes), and authoring fixes + testing them. I will need to extend my learning in the GUI code, while at the same time spinning up more environments to “soak test” the code for long periods.
I remain committed to this work and I am honored to be working for JordanLee and with the devs – this is a great team who has and will continue to accomplish a lot. I wish my personal circumstances would allow for a larger time commitment.
It is imperative that these core changes get extensive ‘soak testing’, to make sure they are stable in the real world over days and weeks and not just in a dev environment for a few hours. The code is not just a merge from Bitcoin, but a refactoring to be compatible with the Nu codebase.
For those that have merged in the PR, compiled, and are running this latest code, thank you for your effort and help in testing.
For those that have the skill, but have not tried to set up a build environment to compile from source, this is my rally call for you to do so, since having more people who can compile the code from source will add to the community’s and network’s strength.
Thanks!
ps: A huge thank you and shout-out to CoinGame for helping along in 2.1.x with defect reporting, testing, and working this thread.
8 Likes
Thank you for the report!
Does that mean you continue with the limited time you have?
1 Like
@CoinGame, I filed a report at https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubit/issues/235/211-reports-different-total-parked-value
I’m sure that the devs are aware of issues and will find the comments. Maybe somebody else wants to provide you with additional information from his/her client with regard to “totalparked” NBT.
For convenience:
###2.0.3
nud -unit=B getinfo | grep -v ip
{
"version" : "v2.0.3-dirty-beta",
"protocolversion" : 2000000,
"walletversion" : 1,
"walletunit" : "B",
"balance" : 0.0,
"newmint" : 0.0,
"stake" : 0.0,
"parked" : 0.0,
"blocks" : 856825,
"moneysupply" : 1301113.0143,
"totalparked" : 85682.1854,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.0001667,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1453190192,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.01,
"unlocked_until" : 1561864572,
"errors" : ""
}###2.1.1
nud -unit=B getinfo | grep -v ip
{
"version" : "v2.1.1-RC1-15-gcf6a10f-beta",
"protocolversion" : 2000000,
"walletversion" : 1,
"walletunit" : "B",
"balance" : 0.0,
"newmint" : 0.0,
"stake" : 0.0,
"parked" : 0.0,
"blocks" : 856825,
"moneysupply" : 1301113.0143,
"totalparked" : 27060.9599,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.0001667,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1460528227,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.01,
"errors" : ""
}Yes we’re aware. I replied on bitbucket as well. There appears to be many visual glitches with 2.1.1. @woodstockmerkle is focusing on the performance elements at this time and we’'re nearing stability from the performance changes. Then we can go through and iron out these cosmetic issues.
4 Likes
Because 2.1.1 was pulled down for various issues which have not been resolved.
right. i remember now.
With nud 2.1.0 when I run
./nud getblock 00000082e56859713f456ef610d0b0d0b2ad9bca6adc 1e1bcda5929e4ff9eb3b txinfo
I get
error: Error parsing JSON:txinfo
Why? The block hash is valid (block #4)
I understand a lot of work has been done by @woodstockmerkle, I believe. Is it not complete or does it need to be reviewed? Just trying to understand the status.
As far as I’m aware I don’t believe Nu is being actively developed at this point. This seemed to be the case prior to the NuBits crash, and at this time I doubt @woodstockmerkle is going to be working for peanuts. If someone with a more accurate description of the situation would like to step in and clarify please do, but this is what i’m seeing.
1 Like
I bet that is true, but I believe significant work has been done before. I’m trying to get a picture of that and how to release that.
1 Like
We need to raise funds.
There are still significant performance issues with 2.1.X, and 2.0.3 is really the only available stable release. If you look at the original code changes for 2.1.0 they are massive. It’s a giant pull request that takes changes for Bitcoin 8.6.0 (I think), which was then restructured for Peercoin, which once again was restructured for Nu. Lots of moving parts were changed. It requires far more than just polish to get it out the door. You can read about the currently known issues here, but I imagine that more would be discovered.
2 Likes
The improvements here would end up being needed for B&C as well correct?
I believe so.
Several issues around performance and downloads failing have been fixed. Several issues remain – incorrect values shown in the UI and in the RPCs – among a few others
Regarding resolving additional bugs: it’s both about finding steps to reproduce as well as me learning the code deeper.
Some people have pulled the fixes and compiled new clients themselves, and they have worked well.
1 Like