* Michael_google gmail_Gersten schrieb am 2007-07-13 um 23:59 Uhr:
> Days? No, that's not, as I understand, supposed to happen.
In my case Tor was idling for at last two days. Thatswhy I'm wondering.
Besten Gruß
--
Jens Kubieziel http://www.kubieziel.de
Takt is
I just realized that tor seems to be testing bandwidth at startup with
received data, not with sent data.
Is this in fact what's happening? If so, I think this test is backwards.
Hours? Possibly. They'll stay open until the other side closes them,
as I understand; that's one hour by default.
Days? No, that's not, as I understand, supposed to happen.
Heck, if I shut down my or-port (so no new connections arrive), and
turn it off in my browser (so no new outgoing connection
* Michael_google gmail_Gersten schrieb am 2007-07-13 um 21:37 Uhr:
> What do you mean by "Hibernating"?
The AccountingMax bytes were exceeded, so it transports no traffic.
> Any process will need to be running in order to close connections;
> otherwise, the kernel has to at least track that "This
What do you mean by "Hibernating"?
Any process will need to be running in order to close connections;
otherwise, the kernel has to at least track that "This connection has
been closed by the other side, but not yet acknowledged as closed by
this side.".
On 7/13/07, Jens Kubieziel <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hi,
I'm running a tor server on Debian etch (0.1.2.14). It's currently
hibernating. Today I needed to restart it. After the restart the number
of active connections dropped
(http://www.kubieziel.de/tmp/br.png>). Why had it open some 30
connections even if it was hibernating? It's not used as OP or
Hi folks,
We're getting close to having 0.1.2.15 ready. I've put a snapshot at
http://freehaven.net/~arma/tor-0.1.2.14-dev.tar.gz
http://freehaven.net/~arma/tor-0.1.2.14-dev.tar.gz.asc
that we hope compiles in more places than 0.1.2.14 (apologies to the BSD
folks :), and has fewer bugs and no new
On 7/13/07, Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
There is another issue, which doesn't appear in the above. TCP is
extremely sensitive to packet loss when the window is smaller than
4 packets (fast retransmit doesn't work in that case). So could
I suggest a default value for Constr
Andrew Del Vecchio wrote:
> Are you using any of the bandwidth controls?
no, that's not the case
regards, Olaf
>> Now the throughput (``bandwidth'') of a TCP connection is limited by
>> window/rtt. What this means is that with ConstrainedSockets enabled,
>> your tor server will have basically unlimited throughput on a local
>> connection, but be limited to roughly 40 kB/s per connection (that's
>> bytes, n
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:44:49AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> I'd like to know how this will interact with tor's circuit selection.
Good question. The first answer is "it won't change it at all",
but you're right, it may be more complex than that.
> If I understand this patch correctly, i
11 matches
Mail list logo
