On 12 Feb (19:44:02 UTC), David Goulet wrote:
>Wow... 1599323088 bytes is insane. This should _not_ happen for only 1
>circuit. We actually have checks in place to avoid this but it seems they
>either totally failed or we have a edge case.
>
>Can you tell me what scheduler were you using (look for
On 12 Feb (21:14:14), Stijn Jonker wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:44, David Goulet wrote:
>
> > On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
> >> without any connection limits on the iptables
Hi David,
On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:44, David Goulet wrote:
> On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
>> without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot
>> more robust against the
Hi Tor & Others,
On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:29, tor wrote:
I see this occasionally. It's not specific to 0.3.3.x. I reported it
back in October 2017:
Thx, I more or less added the version in the subject to clearly indicate
it was on an alpha release
On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
> without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot
> more robust against the recent increase in clients (or possible [D]DoS). But
> tonight for a
I see this occasionally. It's not specific to 0.3.3.x. I reported it back in
October 2017:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2017-October/013328.html
Roger replied here:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2017-October/013334.html
MaxMemInQueues is set to 1.5 GB
Hi all,
So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot
more robust against the recent increase in clients (or possible [D]DoS).
But tonight for a short period of time one of the relays was running
