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

Re: problem with connecting to a hidden service

     On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:28:42 -0400 Andrew Lewman <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>On 07/13/2009 10:08 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>>      My apologies.  I should have written it more specifically.  The part of
>> Andrew's claim to which I was referring was the part about the "saturated
>> network".  Given that the average data rates on my node typically run in
>> the lower half of its capacity to around the middle of its capacity, rather
>> than near the upper limit, regardless of limits upon its data rate capacity
>> imposed by either hardware or torrc, I find the saturation claim questionable.
>Actually, this was Kyle's claim.  Given how heavily I rely on my hidden

     Oops.  Sorry about that.

>services for access, rather than trusting hostile networks, I'd love for
>them to work flawlessly and fast.
     I rarely use them, but I, too, would like them to work perfectly and
fast for those who need them.  I suspect that circuits with long routes
would generally work much faster over SCTP connections than over TCP
connections, regardless of the reason(s) for the long routes.  That is not
meant to ignore the many ways for things to go wrong in the hidden service
protocols, but rather just to point out one of several reasons for slow
performance of long-route circuits, including hidden service circuits.

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *