I2PSnark tunnels

[DISABLED]

as i see it, correlation between i2psnark torrents is possible by viewing the destination.. this is due to the same tunnels being used for each torrent.

i suggest that torrents be ran on different tunnels
this opens up Some possibilitey

1 torrents be earmarked as member of an "identity"
2 each torrent runs on independent tunnels
3 tick box to run on seperate tunnel

thank you this is important to me

[Eche|on]

Will not happen anywhere soon (the next 5 years). To much ressource consumption, to much work.
Use more than one I2Psnark client, use robert, use transmision or snarkXL.

[zzz]

right. The Robert client used to do this but it was too much overhead.

As of now, multiple i2psnark instances doesn't work, but it's been fixed in the Jetty 7 branch, this will be in the 0.9.6 or 0.9.7 release.

[DISABLED]

Replying to echelon:

Will not happen anywhere soon (the next 5 years). To much ressource consumption, to much work.
Use more than one I2Psnark client, use robert, use transmision or snarkXL.

i2psnark * 2 would use more java ram and still more bandwidth
only differnce is code time

Replying to zzz:

right. The Robert client used to do this but it was too much overhead.

As of now, multiple i2psnark instances doesn't work, but it's been fixed in the Jetty 7 branch, this will be in the 0.9.6 or 0.9.7 release.

ok, please consider implementing this functionality although. it would be appreciate by many.

[Eche|on]

Hi

considered and postponed after all other is solved, it may be just coding, but no one see it as needed as you. So, start coding!
From memory consumption: one torrent per destination consumes a LOT of memory and lots of CPU/network ressources, as has been proven by robert already.
From bandwidth point of view there is no difference, if one or more clients do use the same amount of destinations.
Using a 2nd snark is the best solution currently (or i2psnarkXL), the added memory is really not worth discussion about it or coding your wished feature.

[zzz]

Please elaborate on why this feature is important to you. What's the use case and attack scenario? How many torrents would you want to do this with? You want different groups of torrents on different tunnels, or one-per-tunnel?

[zzz]

Multiple snarks supported as of 0.9.5-1. Turned out to be a lot of work to get it right. Instructions at ​http://zzz.i2p/topics/1374 .

Multiple tunnels or groups within a single snark instance isn't going to happen. It was tried in Robert for quite a while and then discarded as too much of a resource hog.

I understand that it doesn't completely meet your request.. but closing ticket as it's fixed as much as it's going to be.