[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: descriptor published, but router missing from consensus
- To: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: descriptor published, but router missing from consensus
- From: Hans Schnehl <torvallenator@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:25:35 +0200
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: tor-relays-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:25:58 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=TG9pneUKxQz6Ms5zKp9+dA8nIjORW/MHhVZE72lzKBI=; b=DKkNcRA28k1klp9mrcA7+8j1PvtX1t4K8lsVTOZzBq72sCsEewpoEWpTyBsnSofIE3 Ga/vf9Urs4IszvfiYSGbTVlt2cKih4rwmXtbxXj0wYnlbgIjPbTlRySoay8Scpfz+FwO 9iwS+E0oWr5WZO3Cn7225BwXoFPdSt2kRaieQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=J6GuZBrEUmPTH0U90ytzQ7EfGIQ3s4CpRvxJmyfF/kBeG7ahamhotuqm8AHTfKs6g9 HRgL05PUpBQX/80EO7jmB/tAzw8427zPcDqH7z2M2sRjnv7RYy9WFruhKorII8SNWHG5 +Bz4bVGlWJeHj2ImUxyGgQj2Rj2mk1YSW7cdU=
- In-reply-to: <201004092253.o39MrFYI028843@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <201004092253.o39MrFYI028843@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:53:15PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:26:39 +0200 Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
> >> Do you know whether anyone else has tor working properly with
> >> openssl 1.0.0 ? I'm considering downgrading it back to 0.9.8n as a
> >> test to begin eliminating different possible sources of trouble.
[...]
Tor 0.2.2.10-alpha (git-81b84c0b017267b4) on FreeBSD 8-Stable amd64
runs a little bumpy (these are, of course, strictly scientific terms) with
openssl 1.0.0.
Tor is statically compiled against the most recent libevent (git) and
openssl-1.0.0.
There's higher load to the cpu with less utilized bandwidt than with
previous versions.
Best performance was with Tor 0.2.2.10-alpha (git-81b84c0b017267b4)
statically compiled against libevent-1.4.13 (the one in the FreeBSD
ports tree) and openssl-1.0.0-beta5. Probably will build that again in order
to regain performance.
Some change in between O*ssl-1.0.0-beta5 and -stable might be the reason.
Don't know.
> >> (That
> >> is what was working before.) However, it is a bit of a nuisance to do
> >> that, so I'd rather not do it if it's clear that the openssl version
> >> isn't the source of my troubles.
> >
> >openssl 1.0.0, but we did some testing with the beta versions before
> >and it seemed to work; afaik. Getting your results with a downgraded
>
[...]
> I don't actually know how much work it is because I've never tried
> it. There is now a tool called "ports-mgmt/portdowngrade" in the ports
> tree that I'll need to install first to do the job. That *shouldn't* be
[...]
portdowngrade works fine, even if not at all new, by talking to cvs-servers.
You might want to save time and nerves by statically compiling the
tor-binary, though.
There's a post in or-talk
http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jan-2010/msg00011.html ( by grarpamp )
about how to do that.
Just run 'configure' and 'make', _avoid_ 'make install' and drop the
resulting tor-binary from /src/or/tor to your PATH. (Remove or hide the
old one before, of course)
I do not intend to start a bikeshed discussion about pro's and con's of
statically compiled binaries, but this saves the nuisance and keeps
the rest of your system away from testing different library versions
three times a day :)
[...]
HTH
Hans
P.S.: Blue !