Skip to content

[2.0.6]m_chanhistory is inconsistent accross linked servers. #331

Open
killerrabbit opened this Issue Oct 11, 2012 · 8 comments

3 participants

@killerrabbit

Two servers, B and C. +H set to 10:9000.

Users are talking on server B, no clients are on server C.
A user joins on server C, no messages are relayed to them through +H.
Only when a user is connected to a server will that server log the message for +H.

During this time, joining on server B always gives the chan history.

@attilamolnar
inspircd member

works here

@attilamolnar
inspircd member

my setup: server A with user1 and user2, server B with user3. All users are in the same channel, the channel is +H 10:1h.
user1 and user2 speaks, user3 does nothing. Then user3 rejoins, and he gets the history. A new user connects to server B, joins, and gets the history as well

@killerrabbit

I can reproduce this consistently. http://pastebin.com/6NHraUpH

@attilamolnar
inspircd member

you're doing a different thing in the pastebin log than what you describe in the issue:

no user is sending messages on server C (but there are clients there)

in the log:

11:15:44:50 -- | Channel #asdftest: 1 nick (1 op, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 0 normals)
11:15:45:17 @Colgate | test
11:15:45:23 --> | rabbit (rabbit@Pony-11bifd.wa.comcast.net) has joined #asdftest

@killerrabbit

Er, yeah. I can't reproduce this with active(listening) clients on server C. However, if someone joins on server C, and there wasn't anybody there before, then the messages will not be stored by +H. I will edit the original bug report to reflect this.

@attilamolnar
inspircd member

That's because servers don't send channel messages to other servers that do not have clients on a channel to save your bandwidth. This means that server C never received the message.

@SaberUK
SaberUK commented Oct 12, 2012

@attilamolnar Perhaps we could do with a mechanism for requesting missing information from other servers?

@attilamolnar attilamolnar reopened this Oct 12, 2012
@attilamolnar
inspircd member

@SaberUK doing that would be nontrivial, this will stay as is for 2.0. I'll come up with something for 2.2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.