Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
> On 18 Aug 2017, at 22:56, Duncan wrote: > > Just restart it. It takes a few minutes, it's actually guaranteed to work > unlike dubious hot-patching programs. The Tor network is distributed and redundant. Clients will shift to using other relays if yours is down. Even the directory authorities can restart without the network having downtime. T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
In theory hot-patching kernels is a great idea. However, they're technically not loading a new kernel. Something like kexec in theory lets one load a new kernel. Furthermore, these hot-patching programs usually only support Linux. If we want to increase the diversity of the Tor network, as we most certainly should, then we need more BSD relays, so these hot-patching programs don't cut it. It's also worth remembering that there are miscellaneous other services and system components that aren't necessarily reloaded by a new kernel. If the C standard library got an update, it's not possible to hot patch that. Just restart it. It takes a few minutes, it's actually guaranteed to work unlike dubious hot-patching programs. Keepyourprivacy: Wouldn‘t something like KernelCare help which patches the kernel without the need to reboot? ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
Wouldn‘t something like KernelCare help which patches the kernel without the need to reboot? > Original Message > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version > Local Time: 17 August 2017 6:11 PM > UTC Time: 17 August 2017 16:11 > From: toralf.foers...@gmx.de > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 08/17/2017 04:24 PM, Chuck McAndrew wrote: >> Uptime used to be something to brag about. Now it just means you aren"t >> regularly updating. > +1 > > I do usually follow the vanilla stable kernel - meaning my uptime isn"t > bigger than 2 weeks since that. > > - -- > Toralf > PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iI0EAREIADUWIQQaN2+ZSp0CbxPiTc/E6s3eAHbpTgUCWZXAMxccdG9yYWxmLmZv > ZXJzdGVyQGdteC5kZQAKCRDE6s3eAHbpTkFdAP9F3POPsg83GS4edr5NLOV9kEcX > EUP0rQJuR/I109SGlAD/eRucOWT/1+fuEOWtG/2Q3MBx9AFgbnL24HwKOSXiWg4= > =83Z1 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/17/2017 04:24 PM, Chuck McAndrew wrote: > Uptime used to be something to brag about. Now it just means you aren't > regularly updating. +1 I do usually follow the vanilla stable kernel - meaning my uptime isn't bigger than 2 weeks since that. - -- Toralf PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iI0EAREIADUWIQQaN2+ZSp0CbxPiTc/E6s3eAHbpTgUCWZXAMxccdG9yYWxmLmZv ZXJzdGVyQGdteC5kZQAKCRDE6s3eAHbpTkFdAP9F3POPsg83GS4edr5NLOV9kEcX EUP0rQJuR/I109SGlAD/eRucOWT/1+fuEOWtG/2Q3MBx9AFgbnL24HwKOSXiWg4= =83Z1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
Uptime used to be something to brag about. Now it just means you aren't regularly updating. This is true for any kind of server, not just a relay. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:17 AM, K. Besig wrote: > LolI'll frame it and then upgrade both...thanks for the kick in the > rear.. > > On Aug 16, 2017 2:34 PM, "Petrusko" wrote: > >> And why not taking a screenshot + print it to remember :p >> >> >> >> tor : >> > You'll lose your uptime, but... don't be ridiculous. It's better to >> > keep Tor up-to-date. That uptime undoubtedly means you're running an >> > outdated kernel too, which is not ideal. I think it would be wise to >> > take the hit and update both. >> >> -- >> Petrusko >> C0BF 2184 4A77 4A18 90E9 F72C B3CA E665 EBE2 3AE5 >> >> >> >> ___ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >> >> > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > -- *The Right-To-Know Law provides that most e-mail communications, to or from Lebanon Public Libraries employees regarding the business of the library, are government records available to the public upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. * ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
LolI'll frame it and then upgrade both...thanks for the kick in the rear.. On Aug 16, 2017 2:34 PM, "Petrusko" wrote: > And why not taking a screenshot + print it to remember :p > > > > tor : > > You'll lose your uptime, but... don't be ridiculous. It's better to > > keep Tor up-to-date. That uptime undoubtedly means you're running an > > outdated kernel too, which is not ideal. I think it would be wise to > > take the hit and update both. > > -- > Petrusko > C0BF 2184 4A77 4A18 90E9 F72C B3CA E665 EBE2 3AE5 > > > > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
And why not taking a screenshot + print it to remember :p tor : > You'll lose your uptime, but... don't be ridiculous. It's better to > keep Tor up-to-date. That uptime undoubtedly means you're running an > outdated kernel too, which is not ideal. I think it would be wise to > take the hit and update both. -- Petrusko C0BF 2184 4A77 4A18 90E9 F72C B3CA E665 EBE2 3AE5 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
You'll lose your uptime, but... don't be ridiculous. It's better to keep Tor up-to-date. That uptime undoubtedly means you're running an outdated kernel too, which is not ideal. I think it would be wise to take the hit and update both.___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
One of my relays has over 416 days of uptime, which I'm very proud of, however it's running an outdated version of Tor. I should probably already know the answer, but it seems to me I would have to stop the tor service to update the relay. Would I in fact lose my uptime or would it be seamless? Thanks for the response ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
