[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #9969 [Tor]: We launch 50 microdesc requests, spread out over just three guards?
#9969: We launch 50 microdesc requests, spread out over just three guards?
------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: arma | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.6.x-final
Component: Tor | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords: tor-client
Actual Points: | Parent ID:
Points: |
------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment (by nickm):
Fixed most of the above issues. In response to my questions:
> * I should check whether there's a faster mechanism here than
connection_get_by_type_addr_port_purpose. If there is, we should use it.
If not, we shouldn't necessarily add one unless this shows up in profiles.
There isn't a faster one. Let's leave it for now.
> * How long does it take us to retry the directory fetch after we decide
not to launch one because the server is busy? It would be bad to re-check
too fast, and it would be bad to re-check too slow. We'd better look at
this.
It looks like we do a reasonable job here.
> Can max_dl_per_request return a higher number for TunnelDirConns for
SERVERDESC too?
I think we can. Making the fix.
> Does max_dl_per_request need to look at whether a particular connection
will be tunneled, or does options->TunnelDirConns ensure that all these
dir conns actually will be tunneled? I should check.
This one is still up in the air. It looks like
directory_command_should_use_begindir() can return 0 for several reasons
other than having TunnelDirConns==0.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9969#comment:17>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs