Re: [tor-relays] Sanity check on NumCPUs
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 07:31:41PM -0500, Thoughts wrote: > For a non-exit relay, is "NumCPUs 2" still the recommended maximum? > Running on a quad core and recently saw a message indicating I had > insufficient CPU power to support the desired number of connections... I would suggest leaving NumCPUs alone, and let Tor use as many cores as you have. Setting it to 2, when you have more cores than that, will limit how much Tor can scale. And that message you saw, which I assume was "Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests!", is exactly about the number of cores that are allocated to handling incoming create cells. There are three main pieces to Tor's crypto, and two of them (TLS and AES) are bottlenecked on the main thread, but one of them (circuit handshakes) *does* parallelize pretty well. So if your Tor is complaining about not being able to keep up with circuit creation requests... consider removing the artificial limitation of setting NumCPUs lower than it wants to be. :) --Roger ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Bridge operators contact addresses online ;-)
I happened to see that Bridge operators contact addresses can now be displayed. https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/metrics/relay-search/-/issues/40017 Demo on Tor Metrics for all 'bauruine' and 'ForPrivacyNET' bridges. Thanks to the torproject team. -- ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! Debian GNU/Linux It's free software and it gives you freedom! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Sanity check on NumCPUs
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:31:41 AM CEST Thoughts wrote: > For a non-exit relay, is "NumCPUs 2" still the recommended maximum? > Running on a quad core and recently saw a message indicating I had > insufficient CPU power to support the desired number of connections... > NumCPU I always let the tor daemon choose itself. This was also recommended by Roger at the meeting 2-3 months ago. -- ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! Debian GNU/Linux It's free software and it gives you freedom! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] [Workshop] Sysadmin 101 for (new) relay operators - June 4th
Hi Isaac, The sysadmin 101 workshop for relays operators won't be recorded, but the presentation slides and notes will be shared here in the mailing list. We're planning to do more of these workshops in the future and we can try doing it on week days. Gus On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 01:09:17PM +, Isaac Grover, Aileron I.T. wrote: > Good morning Gus, > > For those of us with families and other weekend commitments, will an > on-demand replay be made available afterwards? > > Make your day great, > Isaac Grover > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Question about new log messages after 0.4.7.7 upgrade
Hello, It's nothing serious. We're tracking down this issue here: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40612 Thanks for running & upgrading your bridge! Gus On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 03:32:46PM +, wardz via tor-relays wrote: > Been getting these syslog messages occasionally *after* the 0.4.7.7 upgrade > on my bridge: > > -- > May 26 21:00:58 torbridge Tor[ ]: Unexpected path length 4 for exit circuit 66 > 5, purpose 5 [3 similar message(s) suppressed in last 5400 seconds] > > May 26 16:26:17 torbridge kernel: [ ] TCP: eth0: Driver has suspect > GRO implementation, TCP performance may be compromised. > -- > > Anyone know what they mean and if it's something I should be worried about? > Calculated advertised bandwidth seems to be about the same. > > For reference, im running latest Raspbian 64-bit Lite on a Raspberry 4 with > latest firmware aswell. > driver: bcmgenetversion: 5.15.41-v8+ > > Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email. > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Question about new log messages after 0.4.7.7 upgrade
Been getting these syslog messages occasionally *after* the 0.4.7.7 upgrade on my bridge: -- May 26 21:00:58 torbridge Tor[ ]: Unexpected path length 4 for exit circuit 66 5, purpose 5 [3 similar message(s) suppressed in last 5400 seconds] May 26 16:26:17 torbridge kernel: [ ] TCP: eth0: Driver has suspect GRO implementation, TCP performance may be compromised. -- Anyone know what they mean and if it's something I should be worried about? Calculated advertised bandwidth seems to be about the same. For reference, im running latest Raspbian 64-bit Lite on a Raspberry 4 with latest firmware aswell. driver: bcmgenetversion: 5.15.41-v8+ Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Sanity check on NumCPUs
For a non-exit relay, is "NumCPUs 2" still the recommended maximum? Running on a quad core and recently saw a message indicating I had insufficient CPU power to support the desired number of connections... Thanks, Kevin ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] SPOOFED: Re: Ext Relay Operators: Please Upgrade to 0.4.7.7!
On 20/05/22, Ladar Levison via tor-relays wrote: > On 5/20/22 8:06 AM, Kushal Das wrote: > > EPEL generally never updates anything major, and I think in this case > > they counted it as a major update. More details can be found at [0]. > > > > [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Updates_Policy > > > You are correct, in that they don't like to replace a version package to > get trivial updates or new features. BUT for critical issues, they > either backport the requisite fix/feature/code, or if that isn't > feasible, update the package. And if using 0.4.5.11 means those relays > will get booted from the network, it would seem to qualify as important. > > I don't know about EPEL, but Red Hat, if it's possible, likes to release > major package update along with an OS point release. For example, a > number of packages got major upgrades along with the 8.5 to 8.6 release > on May 10th. > > I don't have any inside info, which is why I asked the list. But I think > that when it comes to EPEL packages, the community maintainer makes > these kinds of decisions. And Mister Perry did a good job of making the > update sound important. So I was wondering if a) anyone was in touch > with maintainer, or he was on this list, and could tell us when an > update would arrive, etc? I am not sure if the EPEL maintainer is on this list. I started building the rpm packages because I found there were a delay in getting the latest Tor packages in Fedora. And that was before the current maintainer at Fedora picked up from the previous maintainer. This is also the reason why I keep pushing the latest update to our rpm repository. Kushal -- Public Interest Technologist CPython Core Developer Director, Python Software Foundation https://kushaldas.in ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
