The display produces lots of warning messages like

[joe7575]

2018-04-20 23:24:27: WARNING[Server]: ServerEnv: Trying to store id = 139 statically but block (14,0,76) already contains 1183 objects. Forcing delete.
2018-04-20 23:24:29: WARNING[Server]: ServerEnv: Trying to store id = 140 statically but block (14,0,76) already contains 1183 objects. Forcing delete.
2018-04-20 23:24:31: WARNING[Server]: ServerEnv: Trying to store id = 142 statically but block (14,0,76) already contains 1183 objects. Forcing delete.
2018-04-20 23:24:33: WARNING[Server]: ServerEnv: Trying to store id = 144 statically but block (14,0,76) already contains 1183 objects. Forcing delete.
2018-04-20 23:24:35: WARNING[Server]: ServerEnv: Trying to store id = 150 statically but block (14,0,76) already contains 1183 objects. Forcing delete.

with the simple luacontroller program:

interrupt(1)
digiline_send("lcd", "Test")

[numberZero]

@joe7575 What’s the MT version?

[joe7575]

version 0.4.16 It only happens if no player is nearby (area is unloaded)

[numberZero]

It only happens if no player is nearby (area is unloaded)

@joe7575 It seems the area is not unloaded in your case, it is loaded but inactive. That’s an intermediate state with poorly defined behavior. It is possible to add entities in such area, but not to find (to remove or replace) them. As the LCD has to use an entity to display its text... it can’t work differently.

So this is actually core bug.

By the way, one example is that if items are dropped in such area, they aren’t merged as usual; if the item flow is heavy, that may cause bad consequences, like server unresponsiveness.

[joe7575]

So this is actually core bug.

@numberZero Do you know, is there an open issue/ticket for this bug or will it be fixed in 0.4.17? Shall I close the issue?

[numberZero]

No, probably, I only found minetest/minetest#4759. But I also found minetest/minetest#5112, which may be used for a work-around (the entity may be created as non-serializable in event handler, and recreated in a LBM on block load). And will minetest/minetest#6963 or minetest/minetest#1367 be implemented, all that headache will be gone.

[codexp]

@joe7575 see referenced issue above this comment.

[gpcf]

EDIT: nevermind, problem still seems to exists, maybe I'm not using static_save correctly. I'll ask the author of it how it should be used.

[GreenXenith]

This should be fixed.

[Desour]

@sofar

[sofar]

I looked at the code and I see no reason to assume this was not fixed, so, closing