[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wedged cpuworker

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Wedged cpuworker
From: phobos@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:30:08 -0500
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk@seul.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:35:19 -0500
In-reply-to: <43FCE394.1030902@zanker.org>
Mail-followup-to: phobos@xxxxxxxxxx, or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <43FCE394.1030902@zanker.org>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 10:20:04PM +0000, mike@xxxxxxxxxx wrote 0.6K bytes in 22 lines about:
: Feb 22 21:59:13.588 [notice] cull_wedged_cpuworkers(): Bug: closing
: wedged cpuworker. Can somebody find the bug?
: Does Tor need restarting after this? It still appeared to be passing
: traffic.

	Tor will continue to work.  You're just running with one less
	thread.

: Incidentally I have a hyperthreading processor so have set NumCPUs to 2
: - or should this only be used with two physical processors?

	I suggest testing it out.  I'm not sure hyperthreading provides
	any performance gains with Tor.  

-- 
Andrew

References:
- Wedged cpuworker
  - From: Mike Zanker

Prev by Author: Re: 0.1.0.17 questions
Next by Author: Re: 0.1.0.17 questions
Previous by thread: Wedged cpuworker
Next by thread: tor 0.1.0.17, router_mark_as_down(): We just marked ourself as down. Are your external addresses reachable?
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread