Scott Bennett wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:08:26 -0800 "F. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu wrote:
(snip)
Does TOR implement QOS or prioritization? That is only use bandwidth when
other traffic is not present?
This can be done further upstream of the
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:08:26 -0800 "F. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu wrote:
>(snip)
>> Does TOR implement QOS or prioritization? That is only use bandwidth when
>> other traffic is not present?
>
>This can be done further upstream of the Tor server, as long as the
>s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Csaba Kiraly wrote:
(snip)
> My impression is that in P2P these solutions make people more
> cooperative, since resources are sacrificed only if not in use.
> Actually, I think documenting these in the FAQ would attract more people
> to run relays. L
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu wrote:
(snip)
> Does TOR implement QOS or prioritization? That is only use bandwidth when
> other traffic is not present?
This can be done further upstream of the Tor server, as long as the
server is on a dedicated machine. J
Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu wrote:
By increasing the minimum requirement for a Tor node, you reduce the
geographical distribution of Tor nodes, making cross-jurisdiction
routing more unlikely; it would be better to investigate ways to reduce
traffic overhead (if this is possible) to allow more people
> By increasing the minimum requirement for a Tor node, you reduce the
> geographical distribution of Tor nodes, making cross-jurisdiction
> routing more unlikely; it would be better to investigate ways to reduce
> traffic overhead (if this is possible) to allow more people to run Tor
> nodes.
Doe
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 02:06:17AM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Perhaps there is a simpler quasi-solution here. Right now the tor
> documentation suggests that one consider running tor in server mode if
> one has at least 20 KB/s bandwidth to spare for its operation.
> Perhaps changing that figu
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:47:34 -0500 Roger Dingledine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:18PM -0800, Mike Perry wrote:
>> > I don't see how that helps much. Circuit setup generally isn't the
>> > cause of slowdowns. Normally, going through a server with 25KB/s is the
>> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Roger Dingledine wrote:
(snip)
> (It's unclear what anonymity impact this might have, but it might be
> substantial: if a lot of our potential paths through the network involve
> a slow link, and we discard all those potential paths, that would make
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:18PM -0800, Mike Perry wrote:
> > I don't see how that helps much. Circuit setup generally isn't the
> > cause of slowdowns. Normally, going through a server with 25KB/s is the
> > slowest point in the 3-point chain.
>
> Actually, it /is/ likely that one setting her
10 matches
Mail list logo
