What is it you're looking for? I can talk to some Tor stuff (most maybe),
but not others and I've never 'coached' anyone formally nor done group user
training. I'm going to be passing through Sydney next week, but not for
long.
-tom
On Jan 25, 2014 12:41 PM, "I" wrote:
> Not apparently. I tried
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:27:54PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> So, others have answered pretty well, but I'll add a little too.
>
> Right now, Tor uses multiple cores to parallelize circuit extension
> handshakes, but not much else. I'm hoping that in future versions we
> can make serious prog
Not apparently. I tried them. They are shrinking out of apathy which is endemic
in Australia.
Robert
Prove me wrong, numbats!
>
> Wayne
>
> On 25 January 2014 00:31, I wrote:
>> To avoid dragging down the quality of debate on this list it would help
>> me
>> to speak to people in Sydney who c
These folk might be of help: http://www.slug.org.au/
Cheers,
Wayne
On 25 January 2014 00:31, I wrote:
> To avoid dragging down the quality of debate on this list it would help me
> to speak to people in Sydney who could advise me directly.
>
> Robert
>
>
To avoid dragging down the quality of debate on this list it would help me to speak to people in Sydney who could advise me directly.Robert
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:38:02 -0800
Mike Perry wrote:
> Or, you know, you could just run one tor daemon per core as has been
> suggested.
Sadly this still limits us to just two daemons per one IP.
Almost every server CPU today is at least quad-core, but servers still come
with one IPv4 by defaul
Or, you know, you could just run one tor daemon per core as has been
suggested.
Thanks for your understanding and your patience with us while we work on
this and a couple other slightly difficult and pressing engineering
problems.
Christian Dietrich:
> I've got arround 200 mbits with an Intel Xeo
I've got arround 200 mbits with an Intel Xeon E3-1230v2 (not over 30%
total cpu usage - 1 core at ~100%).
Pretty slow for an dedicated gigabit connection, due to this fact i've
killed my nodes.
The ticket for this "problem" is still not solved, after 3 1/2 years. :[
quote from the ticket(would
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Alexander Dietrich
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a relay I'm running is currently at about 0.80 load average. It has a
> dual-core CPU and I have configured "NumCPUs 2". I'm still in the process of
> finding the bandwidth limit.
>
So, others have answered pretty well, but I
I've added "numCPUs 2" to torrc and restarted via the init script. It
does not seem to have made a difference. I presume that's where/how it
should have been added?
The FAQ says it doesn't do multi-core well. Seems unfortunate -
multi-core is everywhere, now.
On 01/24/2014 07:41 PM, Sebast
The NumCPUs option only causes OnionSkins (circuit creation requests) to
be processed on additional threads. This is only a portion of the CPU
cost of a tor relay (doesn't include TLS, circuit-level AES, packet
handling/memory operations, etc), and now that the network is switching
over to the cons
Hi,
Did you consider the numCPUs option ?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours
Sebastian Urbach
--
Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety.
-
Here's where top hangs out on Libero. Seems it would be a better
situation if Tor would actually use the second core.
top - 12:05:07 up 5 days, 21:35, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.43,
0.34
Tasks: 130 total, 2 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 47.2%us, 21.0%sy, 0.0%ni
I'm about a year behind on reading this list, so in the event that my
question has been addressed during that time, please forgive me for skipping
ahead to the present.
In the past week, I have *finally* managed to upgrade from FreeBSD 8.2
to 9.2 and am now slogging through the rebuilding
Dear list members,
Some relay operators asked if it would be useful to run the script multiple
times on the same system. The short answer is yes.
It was unclear if enough operators would be willing to help with the script
even one time. No one expected that there would be operators who like t
Sebastian, Jobiwan, Moritz, thanks for your responses!
It seems like the machine might be able to utilize its 100 Mbit link
with only one process, but running two processes is definitely a safe
bet. So I guess I'll do that.
Best regards,
Alexander
---
PGP Key: 0xC55A356B | https://dietrich.cx
On Jan 24, 2014, at 10:49 , Alexander Dietrich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a relay I'm running is currently at about 0.80 load average. It has a
> dual-core CPU and I have configured "NumCPUs 2". I'm still in the process of
> finding the bandwidth limit.
>
> Should I keep increasing "RelayBandwidthRa
Hi Alexander
A Tor daemon running with numCPU2s is better than a single daermon on each
core because there is less "overhead".
You can also get a great boost by enabling AES-NI hardware encryption if
you don't have it already ...
This is the best docu available afaik:
https://www.torserver
On 01/24/2014 10:49 AM, Alexander Dietrich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a relay I'm running is currently at about 0.80 load average. It has a
> dual-core CPU and I have configured "NumCPUs 2". I'm still in the
> process of finding the bandwidth limit.
>
> Should I keep increasing "RelayBandwidthRate" on t
Hello,
a relay I'm running is currently at about 0.80 load average. It has a
dual-core CPU and I have configured "NumCPUs 2". I'm still in the
process of finding the bandwidth limit.
Should I keep increasing "RelayBandwidthRate" on the single Tor process,
or is it a better idea to start a se
20 matches
Mail list logo
