tor and Daemantools-0.76

[tor]

Hi all,
       the -d3500000 is perfectly acceptable for running as a hidden 
service or client... I did say you needed to tune for your usage.
I did NOT post a server example...  unfortunately tor on openbsd current 
seems to just disappear and I have found neither core or assert 
messages. I am currently working on a systrace version of Daemontools, 
tor and privoxy for use as a server with settings appropriate for that 
scenario.

AS I use hidden services as a VPN for certain ssh/http servers this 
seems to work.

Servers I have also been experimenting with are on FreeBSD5.3, OSX(Tiger 
and Panther), Debian-unstable as well as miscellaneous others.


and just for you Roger
a 100 second delay on restart:) 

---cut here ---
#!/bin/sh
SLEEP=100
sleep $SLEEP
exec 2>&1
exec envuidgid tor  envdir ./env softlimit -d3500000 /usr/bin/su tor -c 
/usr/local/bin/tor
---cut here-





     a tor operator

Roger Dingledine wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:48:11AM -0700, tor wrote:
>  
>
>>   as the current tor Alphas are somewhat unstable under OpenBSD AND I 
>>DONT have the time to track down the instability I have elected to put 
>>tor under DJ Bernsteins Daemontools to restart as needed.
>>    
>>
>
>Do you get cores? Do you get assert failures? Please spend a few moments
>to provide a bug report if you have any hints.
>
>Also, please please please put a sleep(100) in your script somewhere.
>We had a bug a while ago where people would start their Tor, it would
>suck down a directory, kill itself, restart, suck down another directory,
>repeat. This was not good for our volunteer's bandwidth. :)
>
>  
>
>>---cut here ---
>>#!/bin/sh
>>exec 2>&1
>>exec envuidgid tor  envdir ./env softlimit -d3500000 /usr/bin/su tor -c 
>>/usr/local/bin/tor
>>---cut here---
>>
>>the -d3500000 should probably be tuned for your usage
>>    
>>
>
>Is your instability based on the fact that a 3.5MB data segment is
>incredibly too small to run a Tor server? You want another one or two
>orders of magnitude more than this.
>
>Thanks,
>--Roger
>  
>