February 2025 - tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Attempting to create a relay with Orbot
by blueapple128 20 Jun '25

20 Jun '25

Hi, I am trying to use Orbot's "Enable your device to be a non-exit relay" option, but (after waiting enough hours) the relay's nickname fails to show up in Tor Metrics' Relay Search. How can I begin to debug this?

2 2

Guidance on optimal Tor relay server configurations
by usetor.wtf 23 Mar '25

23 Mar '25

Hi All, Looking for guidance around running high performance Tor relays on Ubuntu. Few questions: 1) If a full IPv4 /24 Class C was available to host Tor relays, what are some optimal ways to allocate bandwidth, CPU cores and RAM to maximize utilization of the IPv4 /24 for Tor? 2) If a full 10 Gbps connection was available for Tor relays, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses would be required to saturate the 10 Gbps connection? 3) Same for a 20 Gbps connection, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses are required to saturate? Thanks! Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) secure email.

8 20

TorVault: Storing Relay Ed25519 Identity Keys on a Yubikey
by Clara Engler 26 Feb '25

26 Feb '25

Hi tor-relays@, I am Clara and work for The Tor Project, Inc. as part of the network team. As some of you may know, Tor supports a feature called "OfflineMasterKey"[1], which allows you to store the long-term Ed25519 identity key of a relay on a cold device, from which you will generate from time to time a medium-term signing key alongside a certificate signed by the identity key. While moving my server and re-installing my relay, I thought about using this feature, the recommended approach of using an offline computer seemed rather burdensome to me though. This made me think about how we could solve that issue by storing the Ed25519 identity key on a Yubikey and let it sign the relevant certificates. After a week, I came up with a tool called: TorVault[2]. It allows you to use the PIV module on your Yubikey for storing the identity key and signing medium-term certificates. The application itself handles the generation and signing of the medium-term key. The usage of the program is interactive and as follows: ```sh $ go build -o torvault cmd/torvault/*.go $ ./torvault 1. Yubico YubiKey OTP+FIDO+CCID choose a smart card: 1 choose a slot [9c]: choose an expiration date [2025-05-24]: choose a path for the identity public key [ed25519_master_id_public_key]: choose a path for the signing secret key [ed25519_signing_secret_key]: choose a path for the signing cert [ed25519_signing_cert]: ================================ smart card: Yubico YubiKey OTP+FIDO+CCID 31892185 slot: 0x9c public key: EVLS6NL8wastoApvJUPDzYxJ7FAdOx22RFpqtlzFGpA expiration date: Sat, 24 May 2025 00:00:00 UTC (1748044800) identity public key path: ed25519_master_id_public_key signing secret key path: ed25519_signing_secret_key signing cert path: ed25519_signing_cert ================================ is this correct? (y/n): y enter PIN: success! 🧅 $ systemctl stop tor $ cp ed25519_* /path/to/your/relay/keys $ systemctl start tor ``` In theory, one Yubikey can store up to 17 relay identity keys, before reaching its limit. Unfortunately, Ed25519 support is rather new in Yubikeys, so you will probably need a newer one (I developed it with firmware 5.7). Another thing you have to keep in mind is, that it is *not possible* to move an existing Ed25519 identity key to a Yubikey. This is a historical limitation of the way on how ctor stores Ed25519 keys. This means, you can only secure new relays with this feature, but not existing ones. Please also keep in mind that this feature requires you to keep an eye on the expiry date, as an expired certificate will render the relay to be unusable, which will in the long run result in its loss of the guard and other flags. I am also already using this in production for my own relay. Feedback is gladly welcome. Thank You Clara [1]: https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/trac/-/wikis/doc/TorRelaySecurity/Offl… [2]: https://gitlab.torproject.org/cve/torvault

3 3

Re: Guidance on optimal Tor relay server configurations
by Tor at 1AEO 26 Feb '25

26 Feb '25

Excellent information, especially the real world scenarios! Exactly what I was looking for! Summary from your email - did I miss anything? To saturate 10 Gbps connection: 1) IPv4 Allocation: Use between 5 and 20. Much lower than 256 in a /24! 2) Tor Relay Count: Run roughly ~40 to ~150, depending on CPU clock speed, i.e. faster clock, fewer relays needed.3) CPU Utilization: 1 Tor relay per physical core preferred but okay to scale to 1 Tor relay per threads/SMT as well, up to 2x Tor relays per core/thread 4) RAM requirements: Maintain a 4:1 RAM-to-core/relay ratio (4GB per core/relay), including extra 32GB per server to cover DoS, OS, networking, etc. overheads In general, some ideals but not required: CPU clock speed: Higher CPU clock speed, better relay performance RAM: Fewer relays, lower RAM requirements RAM: Add ~32GB to overall RAM capacity sizing for OS, DNS, networking, DoS, etc. IPv4: One IPv4 per relay with common traffic ports Scaling: Start with 1 Tor relay per physical core, then add 1 Tor relay per thread/SMT and stop at 2 Tor relays per each core / thread. What are the primary factors that justify running up to two Tor relays per physical core (leveraging SMT) versus a one-to-one mapping? Ex: 37-74 for ~18.5 physical + SMT and 63-126 for ~31.5 physical + SMT. Is one-to-one mapping of Tor relay to core/thread the most compute- and system-efficient approach? Are the clock speeds you listed base or turbo numbers (3.4, 2.25 and 2.0 Ghz)? I'm assuming base. Not sure if anybody has data on how these impact Tor relays? From your real world scenario #2 and advice for the "fastest/best hardware", would this type of server work well for a $20k budget? A single-socket Xeon 6980P (128 physical cores, 256 threads, base clock 2.0 GHz, turbo up to 3.9 GHz) with 1024GB DDR5 (maintaining a 4:1 ratio) and an AIOM Mellanox NIC be optimal? Assuming one relay per core/thread, would this setup be capable of saturating 40 Gbps, given that 10 Gbps typically saturated with ~31.5 physical cores + ~31.5 SMT threads at 2 Ghz and thus 256 relays vs ~63 relays translates roughly to 4×10 Gbps = 40 Gbps? For those curious, according to ChatGPT o3-mini-high deep research: 1) 20% cap on bandwidth contributions for exit relays is roughly 50+ Gbit/s for the largest operators. 2) 10% of Tor's consensus weight in terms of bandwidth for 2025 is roughly 90-95 Gbps of sustained bandwidth. In 2022, it would have been ~68 Gbps. I don't plan to have this issue any time soon, but good to be aware! Screenshots of the lengthy responses below and attached. [image.png] [image.png] [image.png] [image.png] Sent with[Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home)secure email. On Tuesday, February 18th, 2025 at 2:23 PM, mail(a)nothingtohide.nl <mail(a)nothingtohide.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > Many people already replied, but here are my (late) two cents. > >> 1) If a full IPv4 /24 Class C was available to host Tor relays, what are some optimal ways to allocate bandwidth, CPU cores and RAM to maximize utilization of the IPv4 /24 for Tor? > > "Optimal" depends on your preferences and goals. Some examples: > > - IP address efficiency: run 8 relays per IPv4 address. > - Use the best ports: 256 relays (443) or 512 relays (443+80). > - Lowest kernel/system congestion: 1 locked relay per core/SMT thread combination, ideally on high clocked CPUs. > - Easiest to manage: as few relays as possible. > - Memory efficiency: only run middle relays on very high clocked CPUs (4-5 Ghz). > - Cost efficiency: run many relays on 1-2 generations old Epyc CPUs with a high core count (64 or more). > > There are always constraints. The hardware/CPU/memory and bandwidth/routing capability available to you are probably not infinite. Also the Tor Project maximizes bandwidth contributions to 20% and 10% for exit relay and overall consensus weight respectively. > > With 256 IP addresses on modern hardware, it will be very hard to not run in to one of these limitations long before you can make it 'optimal'. Hardware wise, one modern/current gen high performance server only running exit relays will easily push enough Tor traffic to do more than half of the total exit bandwidth of the Tor network. > > My advice would be: > 1) Get the fastest/best hardware with current-ish generation CPU IPC capabilities you can get within your budget. To lower complexity with keeping congestion in control, one socket is easier to deal with than a dual socket system. > > (tip for NIC: if your switch/router has 10 Gb/s or 25 Gb/s ports, get some of the older Mellanox cards. They are very stable (more so than their Intel counterparts in my experience) and extremely affordable nowadays because of all the organizations that throw away their digital sovereignty and privacy of their employees/users to move to the cloud). > > 3) Start with 1 Tor relay per physical core (ignoring SMT). When the Tor relays have ramped up (this takes 2-3 months for guard relays) and there still is considerable headroom on the CPU (Tor runs extremely poorly at scale sadly, so this would be my expectation) then move to 1 Tor relay per thread (SMT included). > > (tip: already run/'train' some Tor relays with a very limited bandwidth (2 MB/s or something) parallel to your primary ones and pin them all to 1-2 cores to let them ramp up in parallel to your primary ones. This makes it *much* less cumbersome to scale up your Tor contribution when you need/want/can do that in the future). > > 4) Assume at least 1 GB of RAM per relay on modern CPUs + 32 GB additionally for OS, DNS, networking and to have some headroom for DoS attacks. This may sound high, especially considering the advice in the Tor documentation. But on modern CPUs (especially with a high clockspeed) guard relays can use a lot more than 512 MB of RAM, especially when they are getting attacked. Middle and exit relays require less RAM. > > Don't skimp out on system memory capacity. DDR4 RDIMMs with decent clockspeeds are so cheap nowadays. For reference: we ran our smaller Tor servers (16C(a)3.4Ghz) with 64 GB of RAM and had to upgrade it to 128 GB because during attacks RAM usage exceeded the amount available and killed processes. > > 5) If you have the IP space available, use one IPv4 address per relay and use all the good ports such as 443. If IP addresses are more scarce, it's also not bad to run 4 or 8 relays per IP address. Especially for middle and exit relays the port doesn't matter (much). Guard relays should ideally always run on a generally used (and generally unblocked) port. > >> 2) If a full 10 Gbps connection was available for Tor relays, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses would be required to saturate the 10 Gbps connection? > > That greatly depends on the CPU and your configuration. I can offer 3 references based on real world examples. They all run a mix of guard/middle/exit relays. > > 1) Typical low core count (16+SMT) with higher clockspeed (3.4 Ghz) saturates a 10 Gb/s connection with ~18.5 physical cores + SMT. > 2) Typical higher core count (64+SMT) with lower clockspeed (2.25 Ghz) saturates a 10 Gb/s connection with ~31.5 physical cores + SMT. > 3) Typical energy efficient/low performance CPU with low core count (16) with very low clockspeed (2.0 Ghz) used often in networking appliances saturates a 10 Gb/s connection with ~75 physical cores (note: no SMT). > > The amount of IP addresses required also depends on multiple factors. But I'd say that you would need between the amount and double the amount of relays of the mentioned core+SMT count in order to saturate 10 Gb/s. This would be 37-74, 63-126 and 75-150 relays respectively. So between 5 and 19 IPv4 addresses would be required at minimum, depending on CPU performance level. > > RAM wise the more relays you run, the more RAM overhead you will have. So in general it's better to run less relays at a higher speed each than run many at a low clock speed. But since Tor scales so badly you need more Relays anyway so optimizing this isn't easy in practice. > >> 3) Same for a 20 Gbps connection, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses are required to saturate? > > Double the amount compared to 10 Gb/s. > > Good luck with your Tor adventure. And let us know your findings with achieving 10 Gb/s when you get there :-). > > Cheers, > > tornth > > Feb 3, 2025, 18:14 by tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org: > >> Hi All, >> >> Looking for guidance around running high performance Tor relays on Ubuntu. >> >> Few questions: >> 1) If a full IPv4 /24 Class C was available to host Tor relays, what are some optimal ways to allocate bandwidth, CPU cores and RAM to maximize utilization of the IPv4 /24 for Tor? >> >> 2) If a full 10 Gbps connection was available for Tor relays, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses would be required to saturate the 10 Gbps connection? >> >> 3) Same for a 20 Gbps connection, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses are required to saturate? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Sent with[Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home)secure email.

3 3

Re: Interest in sharing a IPv4 /24 across a datacenter provider?
by Tor at 1AEO 25 Feb '25

25 Feb '25

Yes, that's a great suggestion! I've adjusted the subject line to match new topic. If anybody is interested in sharing, please reach out. I should have a few IPv4 /24 coming online over the next few weeks. On Monday, February 24th, 2025 at 4:26 AM, boldsuck via tor-relays <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> wrote: > > > On Saturday, 22 February 2025 06:49 Tor at 1AEO via tor-relays wrote: > > > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.101. > > > > We are 5 relay orgs sharing a /24. would be nice if you share the subnet > > > > with 1-2 other relay operators. > > > > Logistically, how do you or how would you recommend to share a /24 across > > > > more than 1 organization? Lots of ideas / questions ... > > > > Are they required to be in the same data center and/or same rack and/or > > > > nearby data centers with a dedicated/private connection? Different servers > > > > next to each other? > > > Whether the servers need to be in one rack or data center depends on the > provider’s backbone. There are providers who have several locations/data > centers internally networked. But the most practical and safest way is to > share a e.g. 1/4 rack: > https://www.myloc.de/en/colocation/rack/quarter-rack.html > > > Router locally doing BGP for something like a /26 to specific servers or > > statically mapping /26 to specific server ports? > > > > Doesn't seem possible via BGP to share a /24 across internet connections due > > to the limit on needing to be a /24 for default-free zone... > > > That was the reason for my statement. You can't BGP advertise smaler than /24 > And hardly anyone can afford a 10G, 40G or 100G connection or several petabytes > of traffic per month. > > We have divided a /24 into /27 which are routed. One AS and each /27 is > individually RIPE ASSIGNED PA > > > On Wednesday, July 10th, 2024 at 6:27 AM, lists(a)for-privacy.net <lists@for- > > privacy.net> wrote: > > > > On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2024 00:32:04 CEST Osservatorio Nessuno via > > > tor-relays> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > we are planning to get some hardware to run a physical Tor exit node, > > > > starting with a 1Gbps dedicated, unmetered uplink (10Gbps downlink). We > > > > will also route a /24 on it, so we will have large availability of > > > > addresses to run multiple instances. We have been running a few exit > > > > nodes so far, but never on our own hardware. > > > > > > Your bottleneck is the 1G uplink. > > > For comparison, I have 2x Xeon E5-2680v2 10C/20T and 256Gb RAM > > > 2x 10G nic (LACP bond) and I can not achieve 10G throughput with it. > > > As a rule of thumb, I would always count one instance per thread or core. > > > I have 40T and 40 tor exit instances. > > > > > > F3Netze has specified the hardware in Contact info: > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.100. > > > > > > > Which is the bandwith limit per core/Tore instance? Or what can we > > > > expect to be the bottleneck? > > > > > > That depends on the CPU clock speed. Fast Ryzen or Epyc's can do 50-70 > > > MiB/s per core/instance. > > > > > > > Due to some other requirements we need for some experiments (SFP ports, > > > > coreboot support, etc) we can mainly choose between these 2 CPUs: > > > > Intel i5-1235U > > > > Intel i7-1255U > > > > > > > > The cost between the two models is significant enough in our case to > > > > pick the i7 only if it's really useful. > > > > > > > > In both cases with 32GB of DDR5 RAM (we can max to 64 if needed, but is > > > > it?). > > > > > > > > Should this allow us to saturate the uplink? > > > > > > Guards need more resources than exits since the introduction of > > > congestion- > > > control and because of DDoS I would use 64GB RAM for a guard. > > > With your IP space and 1G uplink, I would take the i5 with 32Gb, save the > > > money and maybe add a second server later. Or if you build the hardware > > > yourself, look for a used Epyc or Ryzen server. 16 or 32 core with high > > > base clock. Used server hardware from the data center is like new. > > > > > > > To summarize, with this bandwith, this hardware and a /24 how many Tor > > > > exit nodes should be ideal to run considering that each of them could > > > > have their own address? > > > > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.101. > > > We are 5 relay orgs sharing a /24. Currently 5x 2x10G(or 25G) > > > With now 8 relays per IP, over 2000 instances can run in a /24 subnet. It > > > would be nice if you share the subnet with 1-2 other relay operators. > > > > > > -- > > > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > > > > > Debian GNU/Linux > > > > > > It's free software and it gives you > > > freedom!_______________________________________________ tor-relays > > > mailing list > > > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> > > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > -- > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > Debian GNU/Linux > > It's free software and it gives you freedom!_______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list -- tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tor-relays-leave(a)lists.torproject.org

1 0

Issues with Ubuntu packages on deb.torproject.org and its Onion Service
by Alexander Hansen Færøy 25 Feb '25

25 Feb '25

Hey folks, We are aware of two issues related to deb.torproject.org that we are working on fixing: The first issue is the Ubuntu packages are missing when using apt. Tor has, for a while, had flaky CI across our entire infrastructure due to Docker upstream adding rate-limiting for their images, and our different teams have been working on moving to our own Docker images with our own container registry. Things went a bit too fast here, but we expect to have x86-64 and aarch64 packages for the Ubuntu releases out again very soon. This should NOT negatively impact your current installs of Tor, but apt will be unhappy when you do an `apt update` until this is resolved (expected eta: 1 day). This issue is being tracked in [0]. In addition to the situation with the Ubuntu packages, we are also aware of an issue with the Onion Service provided for deb.torproject.org being unreachable/unstable[1]. Sorry for the inconvenience here. I'll update the list when we think it's fixed. Cheers, Alex [0]: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/tpa/team/-/issues/42052 [1]: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/tpa/team/-/issues/42054 -- Alexander Hansen Færøy

1 0

Re: Hardware sizing for physical exit node
by Tor at 1AEO 24 Feb '25

24 Feb '25

>> https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.101. >> We are 5 relay orgs sharing a /24. would be nice if you share the subnet with 1-2 other relay operators. Logistically, how do you or how would you recommend to share a /24 across more than 1 organization? Lots of ideas / questions ... Are they required to be in the same data center and/or same rack and/or nearby data centers with a dedicated/private connection? Different servers next to each other? Router locally doing BGP for something like a /26 to specific servers or statically mapping /26 to specific server ports? Doesn't seem possible via BGP to share a /24 across internet connections due to the limit on needing to be a /24 for default-free zone... Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Wednesday, July 10th, 2024 at 6:27 AM, lists(a)for-privacy.net <lists(a)for-privacy.net> wrote: > On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2024 00:32:04 CEST Osservatorio Nessuno via tor-relays > wrote: > > > we are planning to get some hardware to run a physical Tor exit node, > > starting with a 1Gbps dedicated, unmetered uplink (10Gbps downlink). We > > will also route a /24 on it, so we will have large availability of > > addresses to run multiple instances. We have been running a few exit > > nodes so far, but never on our own hardware. > > > Your bottleneck is the 1G uplink. > For comparison, I have 2x Xeon E5-2680v2 10C/20T and 256Gb RAM > 2x 10G nic (LACP bond) and I can not achieve 10G throughput with it. > As a rule of thumb, I would always count one instance per thread or core. > I have 40T and 40 tor exit instances. > > F3Netze has specified the hardware in Contact info: > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.100. > > > Which is the bandwith limit per core/Tore instance? Or what can we > > expect to be the bottleneck? > > > That depends on the CPU clock speed. Fast Ryzen or Epyc's can do 50-70 MiB/s > per core/instance. > > > Due to some other requirements we need for some experiments (SFP ports, > > coreboot support, etc) we can mainly choose between these 2 CPUs: > > Intel i5-1235U > > Intel i7-1255U > > > > The cost between the two models is significant enough in our case to > > pick the i7 only if it's really useful. > > > > In both cases with 32GB of DDR5 RAM (we can max to 64 if needed, but is > > it?). > > > > Should this allow us to saturate the uplink? > > > Guards need more resources than exits since the introduction of congestion- > control and because of DDoS I would use 64GB RAM for a guard. > With your IP space and 1G uplink, I would take the i5 with 32Gb, save the > money and maybe add a second server later. Or if you build the hardware > yourself, look for a used Epyc or Ryzen server. 16 or 32 core with high base > clock. Used server hardware from the data center is like new. > > > To summarize, with this bandwith, this hardware and a /24 how many Tor > > exit nodes should be ideal to run considering that each of them could > > have their own address? > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.101. > We are 5 relay orgs sharing a /24. Currently 5x 2x10G(or 25G) > With now 8 relays per IP, over 2000 instances can run in a /24 subnet. It > would be nice if you share the subnet with 1-2 other relay operators. > > -- > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > Debian GNU/Linux > > It's free software and it gives you freedom!_______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

Re: Guidance on optimal Tor relay server configurations
by Tor at 1AEO 21 Feb '25

21 Feb '25

Also interested in this thread and efforts. Plan to do your suggestion on 80 core and 128 core Tor server node tests. Will work on posting back here too. BGP plan to keep separate on router to avoid using Tor server resources. Does DNS have similar resource concerns as BGP tables? If so, what's best way to handle DNS outside of Tor server resources? On router too? Can you say more on why you say this, "You can't fully utilize a /24 with 6x 64 core servers on a 100G Router."? On Tuesday, February 18th, 2025 at 8:43 AM, boldsuck via tor-relays <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, 18 February 2025 17:00 usetor.wtf via tor-relays wrote: > > > Another question - what's the most optimal count of Tor relays per IP when > > using an IPv4 /24, i.e. roughly 256 IPs? Looking for thoughts / guidance as > > this can quickly be a costly endeavor with slow turn around times on > > securing data center capacity. > > > The number of IPs is unimportant. > CPU cores count and network bandwidth, fast cores, the fastest and best > cooling! The higher the CPU clock speed, the more MiB/s traffic per tor > instance. > Slam 60 tor instances onto a 64-core CPU (or 120 instances on 128 core) with > 2x10 or 2x25G card and let it run for a few weeks. Then you will see if you > can create some more instances. > You also have to do DNS. PowerDNS + dnsdist is your friend with 2x10G or more. > Where do you do BGP on the server or router? Full table BGP need recources > too. You can't fully utilize a /24 with 6x 64 core servers on a 100G Router. > > > Current hypothesis is around 2 Tor Instances per 256 IPs for 512 relays at 5 > > MiB/s each needing 21 Gbps port speed. See details below. > > > > Option 1: Is it 8 Tor instances per IP, the current maximum? 2048 total Tor > > instances across 256 IPs in /24? 1/4 of the current ~8000 running relays > > (~8200 relays bandwidth measured today)? Seems too many. Example: At 256 > > IPs, 8 Tor instances per IP, average speed of 10 MiB/s per Tor relay, need > > roughly 172 Gbps, which is much less common, especially among volunteer Tor > > relays. > > > > Option 2: Is it 1 Tor instance per IP, the minimum amount per IP? When Tor > > is blocked, it's done by IP, so have 8 per IP is less efficient when 256 > > are available to spread out the relays and minimize blockage, unless the > > full /24 gets blocked? Example: At 256 IPs, 1 Tor instances per IP, average > > speed of 10 MiB/s per Tor relay, need roughly 21 Gbps, which seems much > > more reasonable using 2 x 10 Gbps links on one node with ~256 cores or > > split across 2 nodes of each having 10 Gbps and 128 cores. > > > If you use a /24 for Tor exit traffic, it is completely blacklisted anyway. Stop > doing the math ;-) > > > Option 3: Seems like the ideal would be however many can be utilized per > > available bandwidth? > > > > Here's a rough sizing table (attached and inline) of Port Speed in Gbps > > needed depending on # of available IPs, # of Tor instances per IPv4 and > > Speed per Tor (MiB/s). Legend: <= 10 Gbps is green, <= 20 Gbps is yellow, > > and > 20 Gbps is red. > > > > During the Fall of 2021, I saw ~15 MiB/s per Tor Instance and now I see > > around ~5 MiB/s per Tor Instance (no changes on my servers other than OS > > and Tor updates). > > > > Current conclusion: I'm looking at the 256, 2, 512, 5, 2560, 21 row as where > > I'll likely start. 512 is a lot of Tor instances... [image.png] > > > > ~8200 relays bandwidth measured today: > > https://consensus-health.torproject.org/graphs.html > > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > > > On Monday, February 3rd, 2025 at 8:00 AM, usetor.wtf > > usetor.wtf(a)protonmail.com wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Looking for guidance around running high performance Tor relays on Ubuntu. > > > > > > Few questions: > > > 1) If a full IPv4 /24 Class C was available to host Tor relays, what are > > > some optimal ways to allocate bandwidth, CPU cores and RAM to maximize > > > utilization of the IPv4 /24 for Tor? > > > > > > 2) If a full 10 Gbps connection was available for Tor relays, how many CPU > > > cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses would be required to saturate the 10 Gbps > > > connection? > > > > > > 3) Same for a 20 Gbps connection, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 > > > addresses are required to saturate? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > > > -- > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > Debian GNU/Linux > > It's free software and it gives you freedom!_______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list -- tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to tor-relays-leave(a)lists.torproject.org

2 1

Re: Adding falgs to new relays
by Marco Moock 13 Feb '25

13 Feb '25

Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 04:46:14 +0000 schrieb ZK <zk(a)onionmail.org>: > > >Please give the Nickname for the affected relay. > > family:265E819C80A418EF3690F778B17AF4ED507AC3B1 Check your IPv6 exit policy. It rejects all. Test outgoing connections from the machine. Is there a firewall running? Check the logs for outgoing rejected packets. BadExit indicates that outgoing connections are not possible.

2 2

Re: (No Subject)
by Marco Moock 11 Feb '25

11 Feb '25

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:03:46 +0000 schrieb Azraxiel <azraxiel(a)proton.me>: > I openened Port 9001 on my router 192.168.178.1 and forwarded it to > my OpenSense 192.168.178.2 In OpenSense(10.0.0.1 Own IP) i created > the following NAT rule and same Firewall rule for the WAN Interface > TCP *AnySource *AnyPort Destination:WAN address Port:9001 IP:10.0.0.1 > Port9001 The External IP is 109.199.164.117 Double NAT is always a bad idea. Why are you doing it in general? Please also provide the IPv6 address, so we can test it too. This is the outcome of my traceroute. m@zbook:~$ sudo traceroute 109.199.164.117 -T -p 9001 traceroute to 109.199.164.117 (109.199.164.117), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 10.254.254.1 (10.254.254.1) 1.787 ms 2.142 ms 2.135 ms 2 172.18.0.1 (172.18.0.1) 5.794 ms 6.896 ms 7.238 ms 3 adslgwffm.tal.de (82.139.222.46) 12.980 ms 13.633 ms * 4 xe-101-0-3-90.fix5-r1.de.syseleven.net (37.49.155.221) 13.947 ms * * 5 po1-1000.r4-fra1-de.as5405.net (45.153.82.4) 14.233 ms * * 6 * * * 7 r3-fra1-de.as5405.net (94.103.180.6) 10.937 ms * * 8 ffm-b5-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.148.98) 11.824 ms * * 9 ffm-bb1-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.114.88) 11.429 ms * * 10 mcn-b5-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.126.111) 18.171 ms * * 11 infrafibre-ic-373861.ip.twelve99-cust.net (213.248.97.162) 21.586 ms * * 12 * * * 13 109.199.164.117 (109.199.164.117) 25.685 ms * * 14 * * * 15 * * * It indicates that the traffic is being dropped. Change you settings to give proper ICMP error messages to make diagnosing more easy.

1 0