- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

NTor handshake
by Sebastian Urbach 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

Hi, May i ask when the NTor handshake is going to be recommended by the majority of the directory authorities ? It's probably not a surprise that i prefer NTor handshake as a relay operator. I checked constantly since the switch to 0.2.4.20 and the values are pretty constant. (35k TAP / 700 NTor). I didn't notice any complaints so i assume that it should be possible to push forward. -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman

2 1

Trying Trusted Tor Traceroutes
by Sebastian Urbach 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

Hi, Thanks Anupam for digging deep into the numbers. -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman

1 0

Here,s my problem.
by kattamann＠sbcglobal.net 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

To anyone whom might give a suggestion or answer. Just set up tor browser and relay package wanted to volunteer my computer and connection to those in parts of the world who don't have as much freedom of accesses as us.Question if I just set my computer to not go into sleep mode is that all that is needed to let people use my connection when I am not using it.Specs home built as-rock 787 pro3 8gig of ram dsl connect low speed att offers.

3 4

Re: [tor-relays] Scoreboard enhancements / Trying Trusted Tor Traceroutes
by Sebastian Urbach 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

Hi Renke, Do you care to elaborate ? If you need assistance we can talk via private mail as well ... Bandwidth consumption is very low as you possible read on the project site. Do you run the test with scamper and or did you turn down the scanning speed ? The question remains why did many relay ops canceled the test before completion. As the scoreboard shows most of them would have completed the test in the estimated lowest time frame (around 4 days). The estimated max. time is about 24 days not 96 if you choose to run with traceroute and the default values instead of scamper. My best guess is that even 4 days was too long. After the test was started they wondered how long it would take and checked back with the faq, then decided to quit. Call it a hunch ;-) My system, as an example, took about 2 days and 23 hours to complete the run. I use scamper with the default settings. You can also turn up the pps value and finish even faster. How long will this take?: http://web.engr.illinois.edu/~das17/tor-traceroute_v1.html#q-howlong How much bandwidth, disk space, RAM, and CPU will this consume?: http://web.engr.illinois.edu/~das17/tor-traceroute_v1.html#q-howmanyresourc… -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman > I am wondering why only 68 out of 283 completed the traceroute. Can someone > explain please? > probably because the estimated time is between 4 and 96 days: https://web.engr.illinois.edu/~das17/tor-traceroute_v1.html#q-howlong my (low-bandwith) relay is trace-routing since 4 days and completed a mere 15 % of all checks :) Renke

5 7

Scoreboard enhancements
by Sebastian Urbach 26 Jan '14

26 Jan '14

-- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman

2 1

Scoreboard enhancements / Trying Trusted Tor Traceroutes
by Sebastian Urbach 26 Jan '14

26 Jan '14

Dear list members, Sorry for the completely empty mail a few minutes ago. What can i say, it's sunday and i had way less sleep than i should. But here the good news. The live scoreboard was modified. There is now a new column which shows the number of completed runs per IP and also at the bottom a value which displays the total sum of systems who completed at least 1 run. The board: http://128.174.241.211:443/relay_scoreboard Thanks for your attention. -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman

3 2

A little bedtime story about relays and OVH
by tor＠gmx.info 25 Jan '14

25 Jan '14

3 3

How effective is "NumCPUs"?
by Alexander Dietrich 25 Jan '14

25 Jan '14

Hello, a relay I'm running is currently at about 0.80 load average. It has a dual-core CPU and I have configured "NumCPUs 2". I'm still in the process of finding the bandwidth limit. Should I keep increasing "RelayBandwidthRate" on the single Tor process, or is it a better idea to start a second process? (Also, does a second process need its own identity, or can it use the existing one?) Best regards, Alexander -- PGP Key: 0xC55A356B | https://dietrich.cx/pgp

8 8

Re: [tor-relays] Would be good if Tor were more multithreaded.
by tor＠t-3.net 24 Jan '14

24 Jan '14

I've added "numCPUs 2" to torrc and restarted via the init script. It does not seem to have made a difference. I presume that's where/how it should have been added? The FAQ says it doesn't do multi-core well. Seems unfortunate - multi-core is everywhere, now. On 01/24/2014 07:41 PM, Sebastian Urbach wrote:> Hi, > > Did you consider the numCPUs option ? > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours > > Sebastian Urbach > > ---------------------------------------------- > Those who would give up essential Liberty, > to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve > neither Liberty nor Safety. > ---------------------------------------------- > Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, > journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman > > > > Here's where top hangs out on Libero. Seems it would be a better situation > if Tor would actually use the second core. > > top - 12:05:07 up 5 days, 21:35, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.43, 0.34 > Tasks: 130 total, 2 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > Cpu0 : 47.2%us, 21.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 17.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 13.8%si, 0.3%st > Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st > Mem: 1914136k total, 718704k used, 1195432k free, 139588k buffers > Swap: 3981304k total, 0k used, 3981304k free, 116320k cached > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 1340 _tor 20 0 566m 224m 36m R 71.7 12.0 6168:37 tor > 9887 nobody 20 0 21644 13m 892 S 7.3 0.7 0:31.85 scamper > 9889 root 20 0 102m 916 772 S 0.7 0.0 0:02.80 sed > 9921 root 20 0 15028 1312 992 R 0.3 0.1 0:00.19 top > 1 root 20 0 19232 1480 1212 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.27 init > 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > >

1 0

Would be good if Tor were more multithreaded.
by tor＠t-3.net 24 Jan '14

24 Jan '14

Here's where top hangs out on Libero. Seems it would be a better situation if Tor would actually use the second core. top - 12:05:07 up 5 days, 21:35, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.43, 0.34 Tasks: 130 total, 2 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu0 : 47.2%us, 21.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 17.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 13.8%si, 0.3%st Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 1914136k total, 718704k used, 1195432k free, 139588k buffers Swap: 3981304k total, 0k used, 3981304k free, 116320k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1340 _tor 20 0 566m 224m 36m R 71.7 12.0 6168:37 tor 9887 nobody 20 0 21644 13m 892 S 7.3 0.7 0:31.85 scamper 9889 root 20 0 102m 916 772 S 0.7 0.0 0:02.80 sed 9921 root 20 0 15028 1312 992 R 0.3 0.1 0:00.19 top 1 root 20 0 19232 1480 1212 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.27 init 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

3 2