[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Failed to hand off onionskin
- To: "Scott Bennett" <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Failed to hand off onionskin
- From: Mitar <mmitar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:09:58 +0100
- Cc: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:10:02 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ZUtUuqQPvQXsyff+psns9oDUtDKhb1Iu2aiLsYSERlk=; b=stwS7f/RwDkehMLyxGQdds+iEzB7pnVCCEqV1Sz9TsYbdaLSRF47O3dUImIOAKe2Hk JUD/e/JIf5kXWmeR1w1hKjT2j+s4CSuNN+/364E8TJSt/RzxA4+MSN56CFOD3LEXikbs DHKfXkulftPye6O9AI2p0AXO6oeTie+UQk2rQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=N5qV5EeiKW4kw2ES2oub/S53Y6FAQ+1lpzQFisICp8JbSOXFnLgXtKjqc+inWNXI0r msMYy6GqJe1sLZunBYolUFWluzT3R4pSw+x3ZGVoFFoL6Pi374DOJKmXoqaz9tyLoi99 q/xLjvFgZ0n2ZKBuufkpz7bnItDliN+F8jKIU=
- In-reply-to: <200812192330.mBJNUQTU024697@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <200812192330.mBJNUQTU024697@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi!
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roger missed mentioning (step two) that you can adjust the queue limit
> yourself, e.g., by adding to torrc
>
> MaxONionsPending 200
>
> to double the default limit of 100. Try 200, and if that takes care of it,
> fine. If not, set it to something higher. It does increase tor's memory
> requirement, but only by a small amount.
But is not this value more something of a "warn when there is so many
onions queued"? OK, it is true that higher values somehow smooth out
peeks, but otherwise it also means that I would introduce larger
delays for onions going through my relay. From a perspective of "real
time" processing it means that I would increase the limit of "real
time". So the question is what is better: that I decrease advertised
bandwidth and have onions routed almost immediately or that I
advertise more bandwidth (which I do have) but that from time to time
it could happen that it takes a lot of time for some of them to get
through.
On the other hand it could be true that the default value is meant for
relays with lower bandwidth and so there is a lot of onions going
through the system and they are also processed very fast: only that
there are so many of them at a given moment that the queue gets full.
It is not so much a problem of delay than of a supporting high
throughput.
Mitar