@T3s|4
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
+Onn4l7h
+Over
+marek22k
+nyaa2pguy
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo
+uop23ip
Arch
BeepyBee
Danny
Irc2PGuest30010
Irc2PGuest51117
Irc2PGuest65656
Irc2PGuest74235
MatrixBot
Teeed
acetone_
ahiru
anontor
cims
dr|z3d
leopold
mahlay
makoto
n2
nZDoYBkF
nilbog
noidea
not_bob_afk2
o3d3_
r00tobo[2]
solidx66
stormycloud[m]
user_
orignal
can signle instance of snark handle 4Tb of torrents?
orignal
someone whant to share whole rutracker
snex
i dont see why it couldnt - just adjust your settings properly
orignal
because single destination
orignal
and Java routers like to drop data from too active tunnels
snex
yes, limit your peer count
orignal
whould be nice to receive answer from zzz or dr|z3d
orignal
guys are asking aboyt reccomendadtoion
snex
im not sure either of them are sharing that much. you probably need to track down somebody that actually is
orignal
guys agree to share this much
snex
cumlord might have that much
orignal
16 tunnels max that's my main concern
cumlord
i split it up among other snark instances and biglybts
cumlord
so i can use a lot of tunnels when needed
orignal
how many?
cumlord
depends on the load
cumlord
i've done 20 snarks max
orignal
what's your load per instance?
cumlord
i like to keep them between 500-800 kbs
zzz
I'll defer to the powerusers like cumlord
zzz
but the relevant metric is bandwidth or number of connected peers, not how many TB of data
zzz
and no, we do not 'like to drop data from too active tunnels', especially not our own tunnels, unless we are over limits
zzz
you can't increase router-side limits by running more snarks
orignal
I mean tunnel participants
cumlord
Like leasesets?
cumlord
I think it could be fine with snark but if there’s too many peers bigly would handle it better
orignal
Java drops too many message coming from a router
orignal
even if it's another tunnel participant