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

Re: constrained socket buffers patch

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: constrained socket buffers patch
From: coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:11:38 -0700
Cc: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:11:47 -0400
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; 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; b=QZawaQa0hkvr5hP3KyMzpGpfiKyKGyi4kEoUYgNav1vy7m2CMJvIYUEECXEjxuHMqip5wvLcNoA75iKG0u6+ywA89WdzMIqFwjgHmw1L1VVKmch/X7/4fBdpKz/rW1rt3P2EhyZvGxMxoTeqbrfpMHzmkD/QuOpRWUFm+rhwsek=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=an8emKuJK+h8Q26I15U6dGZot5q44uqZhl6ZxdwGXjjdkxrMypNJvF0wM9KMBDXW2iFX2EbsVvlD3QJvsCx76+ZXYAx3scYsyXjfIl2TrRgy0axydWgUCCs7eYIEBE77W+DlnQ++LmcA0ao6l0E/bPrvzPMdTs3aAx1UqGVm5bE=
In-reply-to: <4ef5fec60707130259v41995fc5gbc8fe82ac15f17be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4ef5fec60707111454v5eea2f35iee3bb7b6d2a747a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7iwsx5oz5a.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070713070845.GJ11269@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7i4pk8ptak.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ef5fec60707130259v41995fc5gbc8fe82ac15f17be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 7/13/07, coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

... updated constrained socket buffers patches:


i've updated the previous patches once again:

- provide a warning when DirPort is set and this option is enabled.
providing cached directory entries exacerbates the TCP buffer resource
contention.

- corrected format to 80 lines.

thanks to those who have helped with testing!  this appears to
mitigate the problem to varying degrees.  i am still interested in
feedback for win32 WSAENOBUFS behavior. (still trying to build a win32
tor.exe for those who may want to test it.)

best regards,

http://peertech.org/pub/tor-constrained-sockets-0.1.2.14.patch
md5:93a36cb59d532ec4ff1ace7b256ff85a
sha1:657840dc5973de5a5cd0a52612aab7a6ce709ac2

http://peertech.org/pub/tor-constrained-sockets-0.2.0.2-alpha.patch
md5:1e2876841e71fca33b30732df55bb38f
sha1:79f3ed89ca693a2c152dd598fa513435db1c3879

References:
- constrained socket buffers patch
  - From: coderman
- Re: constrained socket buffers patch
  - From: Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: constrained socket buffers patch
  - From: Roger Dingledine
- Re: constrained socket buffers patch
  - From: Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: constrained socket buffers patch
  - From: coderman

Prev by Author: Re: constrained socket buffers patch
Next by Author: Re: constrained socket buffers patch
Previous by thread: Re: constrained socket buffers patch
Next by thread: Re: constrained socket buffers patch
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread