For me, I've set nothing, I'm leaving it automatic, and usually Tor
understand how much RAM free there's in the machine ;)
Have fun with source compil !
diffusae :
> I've used this for both instances: MaxMemInQueues 400 MB
> I guess, that I have to reduce it.
>
> Regards,
--
Petrusko
C0BF 2184
Since, today I got this warning:
Feb 07 20:01:54.000 [warn] Please upgrade! This version of Tor (0.2.9.8)
is not recommended, according to the directory authorities. Recommended
versions are:
0.2.4.27,0.2.4.28,0.2.5.12,0.2.5.13,0.2.7.6,0.2.7.7,0.2.8.9,0.2.8.10,0.2.8.11,0.2.8.12,0.2.9.9,0.3.0.2-alp
Ahh, I see ...
I've used this for both instances: MaxMemInQueues 400 MB
I guess, that I have to reduce it.
Regards,
On 07.02.2017 18:52, Petrusko wrote:
> It's running fine since this last upgrade, on my case.
> (I've reduced RAM used by shutting down an instance... no problem, full
> bandwidth
Hi!
Thanks for your answer.
Just compiling the "new" version.
If the problem persists, than I would also shut down one instance.
The full configured bandwidth was used, but it really wasn't stable.
I got this message once a week or so ...
I will give a feedback soon. ;-)
Regards,
On 07.02.20
It's running fine since this last upgrade, on my case.
(I've reduced RAM used by shutting down an instance... no problem, full
bandwidth is used now!)
Good luck ;)
diffusae :
> Hi!
>
> Didn't update right now and got the same message today.
> So, it looks like, the address field wasn't the probl
Hi!
Didn't update right now and got the same message today.
So, it looks like, the address field wasn't the problem.
Feb 05 15:01:25.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring.
Feb 05 15:01:29.000 [warn] circuit_mark_for_close_: Bug: Duplicate call
to circuit_mark_for_close at src/or/onion.c
Thx Ivan for your support.
I got an eye on the logs and everything around.
ps: updated to 2.9.9 some hours ago... looks like ok for now.
Ivan Markin :
> There is nothing wrong at your side. You're probably experiencing the
> same issue as in ticket I've mentioned earlier. "a memory leakage
> so
Petrusko:
>> Probably there is a memory leakage somewhere that makes everything fail
>> and get process eventually killed by OS.
> You're right Ivan,
> my bad !
> Swap has grown quickly and has been full... Ok, it was a test with
> another instance... so I'll kill this other instance :(
There is
You're right Ivan,
my bad !
Swap has grown quickly and has been full... Ok, it was a test with
another instance... so I'll kill this other instance :(
Thx for your help Ivan,
next time, I'll check my graphs :s
Nice shot ;)
Ivan Markin :
> Probably there is a memory leakage somewhere that makes e
A good way to explore !
Exact, some swap is used... may be full of it !
Have to check it...
> Probably there is a memory leakage somewhere that makes everything fail
> and get process eventually killed by OS.
--
Petrusko
C0BF 2184 4A77 4A18 90E9 F72C B3CA E665 EBE2 3AE5
signature.asc
Descri
Hi!
Thanks for your explanation.
On 22.01.2017 16:54, Ivan Markin wrote:
> This may not be related to this issue.
Yes, it looks like.
> "clock jump" may not be a clock jump actually. E.g. one can just "pause"
> all TCP connections for some time (e.g. on a firewall/DPI/traffic
> shaper) and the
diffusae:
> I nevertheless get the "clock jumped" warning once a day:
>
> "Jan 21 18:34:53.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 398 seconds
> forward; assuming established circuits no longer work."
>
> 3-6 minutes difference is quite much. I also have a ntp daemon running
> and don't know why
Petrusko:
> Got it too,
> Sooo many lines in my log file.
> [...]
> Jan 22 06:37:37.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring.
> Jan 22 06:37:37.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring.
> Jan 22 06:37:37.000 [warn] circuit_mark_for_close_(): Bug: Duplicate
> call to circuit_mark_for_c
Hi!
Yes, since I set the "Address "line in torrc, this message was gone.
But ... I nevertheless get the "clock jumped" warning once a day:
"Jan 21 18:34:53.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 398 seconds
forward; assuming established circuits no longer work."
3-6 minutes difference is quite
Got it too,
Sooo many lines in my log file.
[...]
Jan 22 06:37:37.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring.
Jan 22 06:37:37.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring.
Jan 22 06:37:37.000 [warn] circuit_mark_for_close_(): Bug: Duplicate
call to circuit_mark_for_close at ../src/or/onion.
Hi Felix,
thanks for your answer.
On 16.01.2017 18:49, Felix wrote:
> There was similar on 027 but more massive including
> * assign_to_cpuworker failed
> * Your system clock just jumped
> * stalling for seconds
> Which is resolved since 0289. 'Address' was key.
>
> https:// trac.torproject.org
Hi diffusae
> The only warning I have found close to it:
>
> "Jan 13 11:08:46.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 216 seconds
> forward; assuming established circuits no longer work"
>
> That could be due to the IPv4 autodetection? Maybe I should explicitly
> set the Address option in torrc?
Hi!
Thanks for reply.
On 14.01.2017 18:40, Ivan Markin wrote:
> diffusae:
>> What does this warning mean?
>>
>> "Jan 13 09:31:49.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring."
>>
>> Do I need to reduce the number of connection to the relay or could I
>> ignore this message?
>
> As long as you
diffusae:
> What does this warning mean?
>
> "Jan 13 09:31:49.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring."
>
> Do I need to reduce the number of connection to the relay or could I
> ignore this message?
As long as you don't have any warning around this one (clock jump is
unrelated), I can s
Yes I do.
Should I disable it? ;-)
On 14.01.2017 17:32, niftybunny wrote:
> you have a ntp daemon running?
>
> Markus
>
>
>> On 14 Jan 2017, at 17:30, diffusae wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> On 13.01.2017 23:15, teor wrote:
>>> Check the other warnings/notices near this warning.
>>
you have a ntp daemon running?
Markus
> On 14 Jan 2017, at 17:30, diffusae wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 13.01.2017 23:15, teor wrote:
>> Check the other warnings/notices near this warning.
>> If there aren't any, then there's no problem.
>
> The only warning I have found close to
Thanks for your reply.
On 13.01.2017 23:15, teor wrote:
> Check the other warnings/notices near this warning.
> If there aren't any, then there's no problem.
The only warning I have found close to it:
"Jan 13 11:08:46.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 216 seconds
forward; assuming establi
> On 14 Jan 2017, at 06:18, diffusae wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> What does this warning mean?
>
> "Jan 13 09:31:49.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring."
When tor tried to give a task (cell decryption) to a cpuworker, it
didn't work. This can happen for a few different reasons.
> Do I n
Hello!
What does this warning mean?
"Jan 13 09:31:49.000 [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring."
Do I need to reduce the number of connection to the relay or could I
ignore this message?
Regards,
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.to
2016-11-01 12:03 GMT-03:00, teor :
>
>> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 01:56, Felix wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> My log says:
>> Oct 19 01:04:52.527 [notice] Read configuration file
>> "/usr/local/etc/tor/torrc".
>> Oct 19 01:04:52.566 [notice] Opening OR listener on 0.0.0.0:1234
>> for
>> ORPort 443 NoListen
>> ORPor
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 01:56, Felix wrote:
> ...
>
> My log says:
> Oct 19 01:04:52.527 [notice] Read configuration file
> "/usr/local/etc/tor/torrc".
> Oct 19 01:04:52.566 [notice] Opening OR listener on 0.0.0.0:1234
> for
> ORPort 443 NoListen
> ORPort 1234 NoAdvertise
> My Tor finds 0.0.0.0 an
Am 01.11.2016 um 13:19 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
2016-10-31 20:22 GMT-03:00, Felix :
Am 31.10.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
2016-10-19 2:30 GMT-03:00, teor :
On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
Hi everybody
May be someone can help with this warning:
The security update (Tor
2016-10-31 20:22 GMT-03:00, Felix :
>
>
> Am 31.10.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
>> 2016-10-19 2:30 GMT-03:00, teor :
>>>
On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
Hi everybody
May be someone can help with this warning:
The security update (Tor v0.2.8.9 run
Am 31.10.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
2016-10-19 2:30 GMT-03:00, teor :
On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
Hi everybody
May be someone can help with this warning:
The security update (Tor v0.2.8.9 running on FreeBSD with Libevent
2.0.22-stable, OpenSSL LibreSSL 2.4.3 and Zl
2016-10-19 2:30 GMT-03:00, teor :
>
>> On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> May be someone can help with this warning:
>>
>> The security update (Tor v0.2.8.9 running on FreeBSD with Libevent
>> 2.0.22-stable, OpenSSL LibreSSL 2.4.3 and Zlib 1.2.8.) shows the following
> On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:46, Felix wrote:
>
> Thanks for picking up.
>
> > It would help us to know if it's just FreeBSD, or just LibreSSL.
> It's both LibreSSL on FreeBSD 10.1. Same setup worked fine since months
> through serveral versions of Tor (2.6.x and 2.7.x) and LibreSSL (2.2.x until
Thanks for picking up.
> It would help us to know if it's just FreeBSD, or just LibreSSL.
It's both LibreSSL on FreeBSD 10.1. Same setup worked fine since months
through serveral versions of Tor (2.6.x and 2.7.x) and LibreSSL (2.2.x
until today).
> Maybe mention the bug number on tor-talk, so
> On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> May be someone can help with this warning:
>
> The security update (Tor v0.2.8.9 running on FreeBSD with Libevent
> 2.0.22-stable, OpenSSL LibreSSL 2.4.3 and Zlib 1.2.8.) shows the following
> log entry each hour:
>
> Oct 19 02:
Hi everybody
May be someone can help with this warning:
The security update (Tor v0.2.8.9 running on FreeBSD with Libevent
2.0.22-stable, OpenSSL LibreSSL 2.4.3 and Zlib 1.2.8.) shows the
following log entry each hour:
Oct 19 02:51:07.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 136 seconds
for
34 matches
Mail list logo
