Tass Chapman wrote:

> At 20:00 12/03/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> I think the slick idea would be to modify this to add in a random value
>> probably one ranging between 60000 (60 seconds) and 160000 (160 
>> seconds).
>> Since two slons would likely have different values, they would usually
>> stay out of phase, only going into phase once in a few dozen cleanups,
>> which would be unlikely to "tickle" this issue.
>
>
> I think I shall do a watchdog rather than play with the source code. 
> Slon works wonderfully, and if the watchdog will do me until 1.1 then 
> I will be happy. (Unless 1.1 is a loooong time off all of the sudden)

I just committed a change that adds two random "fuzz factors" of up to 
100s (one is a consistent bias, used as long as the slon lives, and the 
other just puts the vacuum off by an average of 50s), and which changes 
failures of the vacuums/analyzes into ERROR messages as opposed to 
treating them as FATAL.

That will make the issue more or less disappear in 1.1.