<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>This is upsetting on what I hear and see not. I worked my ass off to get my relay, now i hear of a strike and tor hireing a ex-cia offical. Even though i read the resigned, that still does not make the difference does it. They have already got in and probably long enough to put in place what the corrupt US Govt wants to do. They have even admitted they know about tor, some military usess it, but they cant penetrate it. Maybe we should all think
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 02, 2016 at 7:56 PM<br/>
<b>From:</b> tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org<br/>
<b>To:</b> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
<b>Subject:</b> tor-relays Digest, Vol 68, Issue 6</div>
<div name="quoted-content">Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to<br/>
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
<br/>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br/>
<a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br/>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br/>
tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org<br/>
<br/>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br/>
tor-relays-owner@lists.torproject.org<br/>
<br/>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br/>
than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..."<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Today's Topics:<br/>
<br/>
1. Re: #torstrike (D.S. Ljungmark)<br/>
2. Re: #torstrike (Volker Mink)<br/>
3. Guard vs Exit Bandwidth (Tristan)<br/>
4. Re: Guard vs Exit Bandwidth (Green Dream)<br/>
5. Re: Guard vs Exit Bandwidth (Tristan)<br/>
6. Re: total relay bandwidth (grarpamp)<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Message: 1<br/>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:26:35 +0200<br/>
From: "D.S. Ljungmark" <spider@takeit.se><br/>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] #torstrike<br/>
Message-ID: <e91d9a79-b03e-01b6-28b9-2efcb5ebba58@takeit.se><br/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br/>
<br/>
I just multiplied my BandwidthRate with a bit for my exit.<br/>
<br/>
//Spid<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
On 02/09/16 02:28, Tristan wrote:<br/>
> Is the Tor strike today? Because I just set up a second instance on my<br/>
> relay to get the most out of its bandwidth.<br/>
><br/>
> Oops 😏<br/>
><br/>
><br/>
><br/>
> _______________________________________________<br/>
> tor-relays mailing list<br/>
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
> <a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br/>
><br/>
<br/>
-------------- next part --------------<br/>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br/>
Name: signature.asc<br/>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br/>
Size: 843 bytes<br/>
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature<br/>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/c0f7b783/attachment-0001.sig" target="_blank">http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/c0f7b783/attachment-0001.sig</a>><br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Message: 2<br/>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:33:54 +0200<br/>
From: Volker Mink <volker.mink@gmx.de><br/>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] #torstrike<br/>
Message-ID: <5AD00FAC-7313-4EE3-A0DC-AA404DB25305@gmx.de><br/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br/>
<br/>
Good job, thank you!<br/>
<br/>
> Am 02.09.2016 um 17:26 schrieb D.S. Ljungmark <spider@takeit.se>:<br/>
><br/>
> I just multiplied my BandwidthRate with a bit for my exit.<br/>
><br/>
> //Spid<br/>
><br/>
><br/>
>> On 02/09/16 02:28, Tristan wrote:<br/>
>> Is the Tor strike today? Because I just set up a second instance on my<br/>
>> relay to get the most out of its bandwidth.<br/>
>><br/>
>> Oops 😏<br/>
>><br/>
>><br/>
>><br/>
>> _______________________________________________<br/>
>> tor-relays mailing list<br/>
>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
>> <a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br/>
><br/>
> _______________________________________________<br/>
> tor-relays mailing list<br/>
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
> <a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br/>
-------------- next part --------------<br/>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br/>
Name: smime.p7s<br/>
Type: application/pkcs7-signature<br/>
Size: 2368 bytes<br/>
Desc: not available<br/>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/52b2c96f/attachment-0001.bin" target="_blank">http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/52b2c96f/attachment-0001.bin</a>><br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Message: 3<br/>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:24:22 -0500<br/>
From: Tristan <supersluether@gmail.com><br/>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
Subject: [tor-relays] Guard vs Exit Bandwidth<br/>
Message-ID:<br/>
<CAKkV4FEWg6u1EmU-vit_9UbBxd5FS3HufD1g8ovy4iUgz-Wnuw@mail.gmail.com><br/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br/>
<br/>
Looking at the advertised bandwidth vs bandwidth history from Tor<br/>
Metrics[1], it appears that guard relays see much more traffic than exit<br/>
relays. I think it might be partially because guard-only, guard-middle and<br/>
guard-exits aren't separated, but would it really skew the numbers that<br/>
much?<br/>
<br/>
[1]<a href="http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/bandwidth-flags.html" target="_blank">http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/bandwidth-flags.html</a><br/>
<br/>
--<br/>
Finding information, passing it along. ～SuperSluether<br/>
-------------- next part --------------<br/>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br/>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/b2ca7fc7/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/b2ca7fc7/attachment-0001.html</a>><br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Message: 4<br/>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:51:08 -0700<br/>
From: Green Dream <greendream848@gmail.com><br/>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Guard vs Exit Bandwidth<br/>
Message-ID:<br/>
<CAAd2PDJM+noPH+E4EwzhH_UOTKdva1DduaOe7v=hbKxm05LETw@mail.gmail.com><br/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br/>
<br/>
Don't forget that some traffic enters through guards but lands on<br/>
hidden services, skipping Exits.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Message: 5<br/>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:53:40 -0500<br/>
From: Tristan <supersluether@gmail.com><br/>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Guard vs Exit Bandwidth<br/>
Message-ID:<br/>
<CAKkV4FGhqFP-vuePwmq0+6sdiqvxFFdUQhQeUb8TuUSedOXkSQ@mail.gmail.com><br/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br/>
<br/>
But hidden service traffic makes up about 0.01% of Tor traffic.<br/>
<br/>
Total is about 75Gb/s: <a href="http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/bandwidth.html" target="_blank">http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/bandwidth.html</a><br/>
<br/>
Hidden services are about 900Mb/s:<br/>
<a href="http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/hidserv-rend-relayed-cells.html" target="_blank">http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/hidserv-rend-relayed-cells.html</a><br/>
<br/>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Green Dream <greendream848@gmail.com><br/>
wrote:<br/>
<br/>
> Don't forget that some traffic enters through guards but lands on<br/>
> hidden services, skipping Exits.<br/>
> _______________________________________________<br/>
> tor-relays mailing list<br/>
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
> <a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br/>
><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
--<br/>
Finding information, passing it along. ～SuperSluether<br/>
-------------- next part --------------<br/>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br/>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/9d6a669a/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/9d6a669a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Message: 6<br/>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:55:49 -0400<br/>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com><br/>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] total relay bandwidth<br/>
Message-ID:<br/>
<CAD2Ti28WQqFCBTKS8UTiGO0fbHH=u+ek5g57V+_xYunhNyVvMw@mail.gmail.com><br/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br/>
<br/>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Michael Armbruster <tor@armbrust.me> wrote:<br/>
> On 2016-09-02 at 13:18, jensm1 wrote:<br/>
>> which shows that the advertised relay bandwidth in the whole network is<br/>
>> more than double the actually used bandwidth. While it's certainly nice<br/>
>> to have a bit of breathing space to absorb load spikes, I'm wondering,<br/>
<br/>
> it's always good to have even more relays or exit nodes, as more "hop<br/>
> points" for connections means more diversity throughout the network<br/>
<br/>
Once a net reaches adequate bandwidth capacity, adding more<br/>
nodes can do a few things among others...<br/>
Good:<br/>
- Gives operators deployment experience till their bw is needed, at $cost.<br/>
- More non-evil relays gives better odds of building a non-evil path, but tor<br/>
weight's things so not exactly.<br/>
- May add some capacity for directory operations etc<br/>
Bad:<br/>
- Yields rather unused nodes making it easier for passive<br/>
observer to see you tack up and use a path through them,<br/>
especially if you're crafting paths.<br/>
<br/>
One key here is probably that we don't have a good idea as to the<br/>
quantity of evil nodes, or the hard interest and real capabilities of PA's.<br/>
<br/>
To make the call you'd need that, and perf metrics of your net under<br/>
different ratios of advertised:consumed:nodecount, and min/avg/max/stddev<br/>
of idle/random/full paths, to find any sweet spots / ranges.<br/>
<br/>
Also considerations of impact adding nodes of less bandwidth or<br/>
more latency than average, versus a campaign to fund replace them.<br/>
<br/>
At 42% util by one metric, it may be money and time better spent<br/>
elsewhere, even on better qualifying the default 'more nodes good' idea.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
Subject: Digest Footer<br/>
<br/>
_______________________________________________<br/>
tor-relays mailing list<br/>
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br/>
<a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
------------------------------<br/>
<br/>
End of tor-relays Digest, Vol 68, Issue 6<br/>
*****************************************</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>