Hi,
I have rented a small v-server where I can spare about 400GB of
bandwidth per month for Tor. Unfortunately, the number of open TCP
sockets is limited to 128 and the operator is not willing to change
that. (Any good reason why they wouldn't?). So what I'm doing now is
running Tor as a non-exit
On 2/21/07, Stephan Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a bad thing to do? (Apart from getting lots of warning messages
in the log file?) Of course I don't want to cause any problems on the
Tor network.
From a pragmatic point of view that would also mean that you wouldn't
be able to log
Stephan Walter schrieb:
Hi,
I have rented a small v-server where I can spare about 400GB of
bandwidth per month for Tor. Unfortunately, the number of open TCP
sockets is limited to 128 and the operator is not willing to change
that. (Any good reason why they wouldn't?). So what I'm doing
On 2007-02-21 21:25, Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
From a pragmatic point of view that would also mean that you wouldn't
be able to log in from remote if TOR gobbles up all sockets.
It's not as bad as that, as the ssh daemon is listening all the time and
therefor already has its socket.
Gee,
On 2007-02-21 21:42, BlueStar88 wrote:
You should read this:
http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#head-f3a370dd3c42d82a180f3f1d070f94906f4eddea
I've read this wiki article, but didn't find any final answer. It says:
Unfortunately, since Tor currently requires you to be able
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 09:46:07PM +0100, Stephan Walter wrote:
On 2007-02-21 21:25, Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
From a pragmatic point of view that would also mean that you wouldn't
be able to log in from remote if TOR gobbles up all sockets.
It's not as bad as that, as the ssh daemon is
Thus spake Stephan Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 2007-02-21 21:25, Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
From a pragmatic point of view that would also mean that you wouldn't
be able to log in from remote if TOR gobbles up all sockets.
It's not as bad as that, as the ssh daemon is listening all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Is this a problem with the tor lookup/directory protocol? I assume the
case here is that the descriptor data assumes full socket access and
therefore does not have a data entry specifying the # of sockets that
can be used. On one level, this is
Am Mittwoch, den 21.02.2007, 21:05 +0100 schrieb Stephan Walter:
So what I'm doing now is
running Tor as a non-exit server with ulimit -c 130, limiting the
number of network sockets to about 100 (The other thirty are regular
files and UDP sockets).
Hi,
my non-exit node ran on a vServer
9 matches
Mail list logo
