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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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