[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: two unseemly tor behaviors
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:33:04PM -0500, bennett@xxxxxxxxxx wrote 5.7K bytes in 104 lines about:
: I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. How is crashing a running server better
: than somebody missing a message? After all, sending SIGHUP is a manual
It happens far more often than you may think. Someone changes a
config file option, hup's tor and assumes all is working well.
It's not until they either try to use the now stopped Tor or
notice their server is offline that they come seeking help.
Generally, it's after someone asks for a copy of the logfile
that they notice the messages about a broken config.
: I think anyone who has been patiently waiting for a download to complete
: over tor circuit that creeps along at the common tor circuit speed of ~3KB/s
: would appreciate more reliable circuits that give a better chance that the
: download *will* complete, rather than die 90% of the way through because
: someone typed a semi-colon instead of a colon in torrc.
Tor will use a new circuit and generally put the traffic over
that new circuit. In practical experience, my tcp traffic seems
to re-establish and downloads (of pages, email, etc) continue
with just a minor pause.