[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: messages indicate strange choice by tor
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: messages indicate strange choice by tor
- From: Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:09:41 -0400
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:09:50 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EkbNIumPKHAVe4QGat+wvSPYLYVIy75lowckVtFDxaY=; b=ZyJ8egiorM2cw3k5Z1kytOqEiGOO95z1f4IfSwiyToPh8qsJRNhbBdfvvHbFz8J31e 3V+vuy9Zji37rd2O15a8S/Ovb6WLouvMhOH9aIk5hCgr0Lu22sw1Z8YdCkll6hiQjZPN iSsj03LG6XMceZmXwC3cu297RQ/mS04uXRchQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ObHCLrWihpKnyDI+GtiqEMmm9vDw6mXiikM+Lg7yI4QMk4Wjlrnp5DhT9xPf4HKsEC 43FdNHJOyXKyPcaR1BhvFOtUAXq+nzApUCT6L1TxrQvOOdPjgAXVL9kxQRWoOYnBdjt/ ohd6bGlX1Dp1QI9X6EGZN7InvQkHOFm/9v5MI=
- In-reply-to: <201004141402.o3EE22GB026761@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <201004141402.o3EE22GB026761@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would be most interested in knowing the explanation for the decision
> that tor announced in the following pair of messages.
>
> Apr 14 08:55:50.861 [info] connection_or_group_set_badness(): Marking OR conn to 194.109.206.212:443 as too old for new circuits: (fd 7, 900 secs old). We have a better canonical one (fd 118; 2239 secs old).
> Apr 14 08:55:50.861 [info] run_connection_housekeeping(): Expiring non-used OR connection to fd 7 (194.109.206.212:443) [Too old].
>
> Why is the younger connection too old, yet the much older connection
> is somehow "better"?
Oops, just saw that nobody had answered this. That info message is a
bit misleading; "too old" in the message should really be something
more like "unsuitable". For the full ugly details, check out
connection_or_group_set_badness() and connection_or_is_better() in
connection_or.c. Some reasons you might get that message is if the
older connection is canonical and the new one isn't, or if the older
one has circuits and the new one has gone 15 minutes but gotten no
circuits. I'll fix that info message in 0.2.2.x.
yrs,
--
Nick
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/