The question is, should I put in an adjustment for
'MaxAdvertisedBandwidth' during the backup window
or make any other change to advise remote relays to
de-prioritize the node for the duration?
Another unanswered question now understood:
As a consequence of a simple parameter tweak,
Vidalia
At 18:14 10/24/2013 -0400, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
Has anyone tried running a live relay with
an image built using GCC 4.8 and
-fsanitize=address?
Took an initial jab at it by compiling
just 'tor' with
CFLAGS = -g -O1 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector
At 16:19 10/15/2013 -0400, starli...@binnacle.cx wrote:
Question:
What the difference between the bandwidth
value given by
getinfo ns/name/x
w Bandwidth=297
and
getinfo dir/server/authority
bandwidth 30 375000 335872
Since no one answered the question and
I now have an idea
I observed an interesting behavior in the
authority votes regarding relay stability
and am curious if anyone can comment.
Have a new relay, about ten days old.
Relay is marked
Fast Guard Running Stable Valid
One 10 minute network outage three days ago
and then a 68 minute outage one day ago
Has anyone tried running a live relay with
an image built using GCC 4.8 and
-fsanitize=address?
AddressSanitizer documentation says it should
be no worse than about x4 on CPU and typically
about x2, so it looks reasonable to try.
I'm seeing peak CPU of about 7-8% of a 2.2GHz
AMD core.
I'd
Newer versions of 'openssl' require access to
/proc/sys/kernel/random
and so the line
/proc/sys/kernel/random /chroot_tor/proc/sys/kernel/random auto bind 0 0
must be added to the
/etc/fstab
file or the command
mount -o bind /proc/sys/kernel/random
