Tor 0.2.2.5-alpha released

by phobos | October 12, 2009

On October 11, we released Tor 0.2.2.5-alpha.

It can be downloaded from https://decvnxytmk.oedi.net/download/.

It contains:

Major bugfixes:

  • Make the tarball compile again. Oops. Bugfix on 0.2.2.4-alpha.

New directory authorities:

  • Move dizum to an alternate IP address.

Code simplifications and refactorings

  • Numerous changes, bugfixes, and workarounds from Nathan Freitas
    to help Tor build correctly for Android phones.

Comments

Please note that the comment area below has been archived.

Anonymous (not verified) said:

October 12, 2009

Permalink

In polish version LOG are in english
no help!
And in WWW no image translated

phobos

phobos said:

October 13, 2009

Permalink

perhaps no one has translated the log entries to polish, we have a fine translation portal to do just that.

no one ever translates the images because our volunteer translators aren't graphic artists.

Will you help us translate these things?

Cav Edwards (not verified) said:

October 17, 2009

Permalink

We have been doing some testing of Tor.
We are using this bandwidth test tool:
http://i.dslr.net/iphone_speedtest.html (clicking the GPS test)

We have found the following results:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6YAzYus3pVYZWEwZmUxNTgtODlhZi00ZjE…

What we cannot understand is why there is a difference when constrained socks size is set to the default of 8KB in the torrc file as opposed to leaving it unset and defaulting. We thought the default was 8KB. This means the results for 8KB set explicitly and 8KB set by default (no option set for ConstrainedSocksSize in torrc) should deliver similar performance.

In our graph, the 'not set' option and the 8KB option are wildly different. The explicitly set 8KB option seems to consistently perform the best.

Can someone explain our results. We had thought that circuit quality could change dramatically over the lifetime that Tor is running, which means our results could be random. We did a crude 'burn in' before taking the results and ran them multiple times though.

Maybe others could corroborate our results.

Many thanks for your time...

Cav Edwards