~dr|z3d
@RN
@StormyCloud
@eyedeekay
@not_bob_afk
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
%acetone
%mareki2p
+H20
+Onn4l7h
+Onn4|7h
+Over
+Sh0ck
+leopold_
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo_BNC
+uop23ip
+xHarr
Arch2
BubbRubb
Dann
DeltaOreo
Guest99
Irc2PGuest18689
Irc2PGuest57895
Irc2PGuest74254
Irc2PGuest90101
Irc2PGuest95708
Meow
Stormycl1
T3s|4__
ac9f_
anontor
cumlord
duck
floatyfloatilla
gelleger1
halloy13412
mahlay
makoto
n1_
nZDoYBkF_
nilbog-
ntty
onon_
r00tobo[2]
simprelay
solidx66_
thetia
zer0bitz
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