- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Onionoo down?
by Geoff Down 03 Oct '15

03 Oct '15

A query using Globe stalls at the 'processing - please wait' stage, so I assume the problem is actually with Onionoo. GD -- http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...

4 4

how reliable is the advertised vs consumed bandwidth on tor metrics
by jensm1 02 Oct '15

02 Oct '15

I just stumbled over this (https://metrics.torproject.org/bandwidth-flags.html) graph at tor metrics, which shows advertised exit bandwidth to be around 40Gbit/s and consumed exit bandwidth around 20Gbit/s. This would mean that we have about twice as much exit bandwidth than we need, which I strongly doubt. So now I'm curious about what causes this disparity. Thanks!

2 1

doesn't Tor 0.2.7.3_rc like IPv6 ?
by Toralf Förster 29 Sep '15

29 Sep '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Looking at the daily traffic stats got from my ISP I had an Incoming of 50 GB/day and Outgoing of 1.6 GB with version 0.2.6.10 whereas the -rc now gives 8 GB Incoming and 0.06 Outgoing. Anybody with similar experiences ? - -- Toralf, pgp key: 872AE508 0076E94E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYJjuYACgkQxOrN3gB26U5DngD/VSJ00A9sstKQ2PNPYrJcJNFZ b+m0SJ4BJK84b9Tt3kwA/jcbLwkgiteMjCTqBRRmAEti8SQtSolvY24wP0GR7Luv =HFDD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 5

Library Freedom Project
by Kenneth Freeman 29 Sep '15

29 Sep '15

This institutional support for the Tor Project is extremely important. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Freedom_Project The Tor Browser and Intellectual Freedom in the Digital Age https://journals.ala.org/rusq/article/view/5704/7092

1 0

IP and SWIP for a Tor exit node
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 27 Sep '15

27 Sep '15

>> (2) SWIP/RWHOIS + ARIN/RIPE >> >> SWIP'ing is a bit exotic though some ISPs provide it. >> Be sure to use a PO box in the contact info rather than >> your real address if you obtain this. > >This would be for privacy reasons, right? i.e. to avoid >advertising my own address? yes >What if I put there my university address? >(I am a PhD there and we can receive mail. . . Sure, that would work perfectly. >> Looked at Aruba offerings, check this out >> >> https://serverdedicati.aruba.it/server-dedicati/basic-1-3.aspx >> >Thanks very much for the advice. I will start >with the small VPS one, see how Aruba behaves >in terms of handling complaints and abuse >reports and if all goes well I will consider >the option above. If you do, try to find out exactly what CPU it will have and whether you can choose if more than one type exists; check them against this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors Several newer Atom CPUs have AES-NI instruction support. With AES-NI a 1.6 GHz will "punch above its weight" as a Tor relay. AES supports increases performance for Tor relays by about 2.5 times clock-cycle-for-clock-cycle. >Thank you for taking the time of looking into it. Your are welcome, good luck!

1 0

IP and SWIP for a Tor exit node
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 27 Sep '15

27 Sep '15

>I have bought some credit on Aruba. . . Looked at Aruba offerings, check this out https://serverdedicati.aruba.it/server-dedicati/basic-1-3.aspx For 15 euros/month you can have a dedicated dual-core 1.6GHz with 100MBPS unmetered traffic. This will make a rather nice exit node for the cost and will run better than a typical VPS where one has no control over system load. Even with the low clock-speed, network processing latency will be very good. Probably is an Atom or maybe a Celeron CPU and the it will probably run at close to 100%--not a problem. If one 'tor' instance does not use more than 30-40% of the 100MBPS due to limited CPU, fire up a second relay. Up to two relays can run on a single IP address. But if one 'tor' instance runs at 50-60% of bandwidth or better it would make sense to stick with just the one. Non-exit relays typically load at 25-35%; is the intentional design of the bandwidth allocation system. However due to the relative shortage of them, exits run more like 80% of useable bandwidth as determined by the BWauths.

2 1

IP and SWIP for a Tor exit node
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 27 Sep '15

27 Sep '15

(1) In the guide it is advised to "Get a separate IP for the node. . . You have the right idea. Tor-exit node IPs end up on all sorts of black-lists and it's best to segregate exit traffic from all other traffic. Try pulling up a few exits using http://multirbl.valli.org and you will see this. In particular, Tor exits usually test positive on http://www.abuseat.org/ (aka the Spamhaus CBL) as all sorts of infectious malware bot(s). (2) SWIP/RWHOIS + ARIN/RIPE SWIP'ing is a bit exotic though some ISPs provide it. Be sure to use a PO box in the contact info rather than your real address if you obtain this. What happens is that the handful of IP addresses assigned to your server get their own WHOIS sub-record listed first before the ISP address-block record. Has the advantage many abuse complaints will go directly to you instead of first to the ISP. At one time some residential ISPs SWIP'ed their customers by default, but this produced all kinds of problems and complaints so the practice is gone. Not necessary if you can manage a constructive dialog with the abuse department of the ISP. Start with an email to the address that http://www.abusix.org/ lists for the IP and ask them what procedures they might have where you can have abuse reports forwarded directly to you and/or have the IP noted as a Tor Exit / VPN / Proxy in whatever system they have for handling abuse reports. Most abuse reports are automated spam from WordPress blogs complaining about brute-force password attacks and automatic malware-detecting honeypots. If you hear from a real person it will be extraordinary.

2 1

IP and SWIP for a Tor exit node
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 27 Sep '15

27 Sep '15

>What are additional IPs good for? My ISP sells additional >(public) IPs for 3,60 euro/month, would it be worth it or >necessary purchasing such an additional service? For the size node presently indicated, additional IP address are of no particular value. Extra IPs can be use for 1) running additional 'tor' router instances on medium-to-large multi-core servers with high available bandwidth (high as in 100TB/month per core for non-AES-NI CPU cores, multiple 1G connections or a 10G network connection for AES-NI CPUs) 2) allowing exit traffic to travel out on different interfaces than the OR port--not sure if that provides extra value 3) perhaps running a bridge node instance along with the router instance--is best to have non-adjacent IPs 4) for bridge-only setups extra IPs allow one to start new bridge instances when old ones are blocked by censors and/or simply run multiple bridges; again non-contiguous addresses are best If you can obtain a "bare-metal," "root" or "dedicated" server (synonyms) for a good price, in general the router will be dramatically faster due to better latency afforded by the lack of a virtualization layer and lack of competition from other users. Similar for Linux container setups where virtualization is almost free, but servers can be heavily loaded with numerous customers.

1 0

Blutmagie is Good Looking and VERY SLOW -- this script is VERY FAST
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 26 Sep '15

26 Sep '15

one more enhancement: added a -W option to have underscore characters used for inactive flag positions. Produces a single column for flags, thus enabling trivial command-line 'awk' and 'perl -n' scripting.

1 0

new exit node
by support＠ruggedinbox.com 26 Sep '15

26 Sep '15

Hi we are running from few hours a new Tor exit node: 87.120.37.163 aka tor-exit-node-01.cryptonoid.com aka cryptonoid.com We couldn't register the IP with ARIN but of course the data center knows what we are doing and is willing to take the risk, we hope to be able to handle the abuses notices and are here to learn :) The current configuration is: ORPort 9001 Address tor-exit-node-01.cryptonoid.com Nickname cryptonoid01 RelayBandwidthRate 768 KB RelayBandwidthBurst 1024 KB ContactInfo RuggedInbox team <support(a)ruggedinbox.com> DirPort 9030 DirPortFrontPage /etc/tor/tor-exit-notice.html ExitPolicy accept *:22 ExitPolicy accept *:80 ExitPolicy accept *:443 ExitPolicy accept *:465 ExitPolicy accept *:993 ExitPolicy accept *:995 ExitPolicy reject *:* Does it looks good to you ? Currently both https://torstatus.blutmagie.de and https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/87.120.37.163 show the server as 'relay', not as exit. Is that normal ? Thank you, RuggedInbox team

3 6

Flipping from guard and back again
by 29230912＠tutanota.com 24 Sep '15

24 Sep '15

https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/113FCC01A29B4600A8BAA1CB72E6AB1FD899A… Any pointers about why my relay is flipping between guard and not guard? Thank you

4 3

Legal status of operating Tor exit in UK?
by Jonathan Baker-Bates 23 Sep '15

23 Sep '15

I run an exit node with an ISP who initially indicated they would not have a problem with Tor as long as I was transparent about what I was doing, and ran a sufficiently reduced exit policy. They have now sent me evidence of malicious traffic coming from the exit. I don't think they've had any 3rd party complaints about this traffic, but they have expressed various misgivings about Tor in general. They now also want me to consider running Snort IDS on the outgoing traffic. I don't intend to monitor my traffic. But it occurs to me I don't know whether my ISP needs to be worried about it or not. The last one wasn't, so why them? I've asked the EFF about the legal situation in the UK, who passed me to the Open Rights Group. They've not replied to my enquiry as of three weeks ago. So does anyone know of any reliable source of information on running Tor exits in the UK? What would happen if my ISP pressed me to monitor my traffic, and I refused on legal grounds? I'm not suggesting I actually do that, or that there are even any legal grounds to refuse. In fact right now I'm resigned to closing down the node if my ISP turns up the heat. They probably have me by the balls. But I'm at least curious, and can't immediately find any information about things like public carrier status, or traffic monitoring conducted by people like me when it's done in the context of onion routing. Thanks in advance for any help.

9 10

Re: [tor-relays] Deciding where to put new Tor relays
by Virgil Griffith 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

After talking with APNIC/RIPE, it looks like that if we ask nicely we can get high-quality BGP-peering graphs for the entire Internet (not 100% complete, but it's the same data they use internally). Spend some time thinking about exactly what kinds of attacks we wish to harden against. Once we understand the attacks, I'll figure out the appropriate graph-theory for hardening against it. -V On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:48 PM Moritz Bartl <moritz(a)torservers.net> wrote: > Interesting, thanks for the update. Maybe we can find some time at the > dev meeting to chat. :) > > Moritz > > On 09/10/2015 07:12 AM, Virgil Griffith wrote: > > I'm at an APNIC conference in Jakarta, and they demoed a new tool which > > shows the interconnections (peering + transits) between AS numbers > > within a given country (will eventually work for regions). > > > > URL: http://labs.apnic.net/vizas/ > > Left-panel is IPv4 and right-panel is IPv6. > > > > Here is the fellow who built it: > > https://www.linkedin.com/pub/geoff-huston/42/828/891 > > > > > > For Tor, this tool helps us prioritize the ASs for new relays. To > > maximize censorship resistance, we would want relays on AS numbers in > > the middle (lots of interconnections) that do not currently have Tor > relays. > > > > We can imagine giving out Roster bonus points depending on the > > AS-number. The points would go something like: > > > > AS_i_bonus_points = ASweight(i) / #_Tor_relays_on_AS > > > > ASweight(i) = k * \sum_{j=1}^n num_ips_routed_by_edge_i_j > > where k is an arbitrary constant (k=1 is reasonable). > > > > This could be very useful for deciding where to put new relays. I'll > > see if I can access to the raw data that generates these graphs so we > > have more than just pretty pictures. > > > > Much love, > > -V > > -- > Moritz Bartl > https://www.torservers.net/ >

2 2

Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option
by Tor Stuff 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

I am running tor on a new Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS system. I have restarted tor a couple of times with service tor restart I noticed when I start arm that it is telling me that The torrc differs from what tor's using. You can issue sighup to reload ... It seems that tor is running with default values and is not reading /etc/tor/torrc as there is no ... -f /etc/tor/torrc option being used by the running tor when it is displayed with 'ps'. The 'ps' output for the tor instance is /usr/bin/tor --defaults-torrc /usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush I had asumed that because I have set DirPort to 80 and ORPort to 443 in /etc/tor/torrc and can see in the tor log files that those two ports are reachable from outside, that the running tor was reading /etc/tot/torrc. Something is amiss with my tor configuration but I don't know what. Any hints as to where to look would be welcome while I try to RTFM again! Cheers Q

4 3

Non-standard Bridge
by Geoff Down 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

Hello all, I'm trying to set up a Bridge/Client Tor instance with the following torrc: ControlPort 9051 ExitPolicy reject *:* HashedControlPassword <pwd> Nickname <nickname> ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9001 ORPort 80 BridgeRelay 1 ContactInfo <contactinfo> Should this work as a bridge? Client functionality is fine (port 80 is forwarded to 9001) but there is no reachability test in the log. I have a "bridge's hashed identity key fingerprint" in there; where is it I can check online to be sure the BridgeDB has received it? I wanted to check it worked with fixed ports before I tried 'ORPort auto'. GD -- http://www.fastmail.com - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow

3 5

Fwd: WG: Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option
by Christian 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: WG: [tor-relays] Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option Datum: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:38:36 +0200 (MEST) Von: brightsidedarkside(a)t-online.de An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Sorry, to dumb to handle Android Mail. And prone to mistrust regarding my private address. Gesendet mit meinem HTC ----- Forwarded message ----- Von: An: "Billy Humphreys" <PokeAcer549(a)outlook.com> Betreff: [tor-relays] Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option Datum: Mo., Sep. 21, 2015 18:36 Hi all, I might miss the point, but as I also run Tor on Ubuntu, I can confirm it reads both config files, the default one and my torrc. The default one makes sure e.g. privilege dropping to user debian-tor and a few other things in case you miss to set them properly. My ORPort and other config is done via my torrc. And I would bet a cup of tasty coffee that Tor on Ubuntu looks for /etc/torrc and not for /etc/tor/torrc, but I always lose when I'm willing to bet, so I guess it's just a little stubborn. Greetings to you all. Christian Gesendet mit meinem HTC ----- Reply message ----- Von: "Billy Humphreys" <PokeAcer549(a)outlook.com> An: <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> Betreff: [tor-relays] Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option Datum: Mo., Sep. 21, 2015 18:15 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 It normally uses /usr/bin/<service name> On 21/09/2015 15:50, Sean Greenslade wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 09:05:21PM +0100, Tor Stuff wrote: >> I am running tor on a new Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS system. I have >> restarted tor a couple of times with >> >> service tor restart >> >> I noticed when I start arm that it is telling me that >> >> The torrc differs from what tor's using. You can issue sighup to >> reload ... >> >> It seems that tor is running with default values and is not >> reading /etc/tor/torrc as there is no ... -f /etc/tor/torrc >> option being used by the running tor when it is displayed with >> 'ps'. >> >> The 'ps' output for the tor instance is >> >> /usr/bin/tor --defaults-torrc >> /usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush >> >> I had asumed that because I have set DirPort to 80 and ORPort to >> 443 in /etc/tor/torrc and can see in the tor log files that those >> two ports are reachable from outside, that the running tor was >> reading /etc/tot/torrc. >> >> Something is amiss with my tor configuration but I don't know >> what. >> >> Any hints as to where to look would be welcome while I try to >> RTFM again! >> >> Cheers >> >> Q > > This isn't really a Tor issue, it's an Ubuntu one. But you need to > figure out how "service" is launching Tor and change it to point to > your /etc torrc. > > --Sean _______________________________________________ tor-relays > mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > - -- _______________________________________________ My GPG keyID is 0x6DEF6C26 - the key is avaliable on most keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWAC06AAoJEHukJMVt72wm7g8P/2QB01RxefD5hGFFwlt2k651 RwPeD1FaeAlRUDTsb4nUpxv0Cy5tYvzMmlqOx5YbWNgH7iBqYynoUXuWSgD/skfp Zfycin75lSOSLv5nj3gFDfh6z7xivxcwl8sfrtS/wRNmWtPaiVPx+uz+7K8Vr/qn 1A5QADFoCRBaQtl44cXJWdWtg5CKtPoCHEA95vYQDMunoL0diJJJyQH3wq7ERRgJ kamoZn6EtIVx+EJYkZmQ21GXTa9c5hjkW+reI6XUKZkgnq61Vbkw6HkRW7UUo8/y rp8q5sYmDCL61fZnSD7DeBFBBj7ajnccsGzjV5bBG9ztD7iTVvh0SWu05FaghcRu gpZ+/M7Z/8OUkCgr6F4YFAuE6mwJIcF8azSFXvuCsiVVfxo6DA8BGjzvLouZvdkx Q8SfCQYKUCAURtIamws5jRZHk+dSkktPvWqu4KMfmxbvtrA9xt8h2B/6+ix0c2X2 OXd13fl+D0E/Hu7Ka653SUBxiOJ2AbRGQDh998SjfAWA0qqkXLDTn6q6APlCB3g2 yjl03EVPdqx8zjGcQfeHhtmoEpWo92nPWzpXVeHODOu3UrTVF+wN5zlFf/NkVb16 v0kuyzCtnd5EZ8AbyI/c2ZGANMffuv47kHq8u2VQ+hZJJrN22Lc4Zs/PD31sBZGD 5WhIC9mkp/WD6rt9/+K9 =37jU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

3 2

Why are Globe/Atlas not showing my upgraded (& advertised) bandwidth
by Tor Stuff 20 Sep '15

20 Sep '15

It is now more 7 hours since I restarted my Middle Relay after the upgrade to my broadband to FTTC which by various tests is consistently showing more than 75/20 Mbits/s speeds now. I edited my torrc file and set RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst to 2.5 MBytes to reflect my new fast connection. The Tor log shows that both the DirPort and ORPort are reachable from the outside since the restart. Arm is correctly showing my bandwidth (limit & burst) as 20 Mb/s. However both Globe and Atlas are showing an Advertised Bandwidth which is less than my previous RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst settings of 100 KBytes and 110 KBytes respectively! I have been running this node (nickname 'Geheimschreiber') with fingerprint C69D24F9353E16D85E82B4A9E4571DFAF6DCF531 for many months so expected Atlas/Globe to pickup my changed capabilities fairly quickly. Am I being too impatient or have I omitted something in my Tor configuration? Thanks Q

2 2

Blutmagie is Good Looking and VERY SLOW -- this script is VERY FAST
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 20 Sep '15

20 Sep '15

improved: 1) flags on left side for easy left-anchor grep'ping 2) authority flag shares exit flag column 3) "a" alpha and "r" rc appended to version 4) OS flag in separate aligned column NOTES no "directory" flag since dir-port is "none" when not present no "valid" or "running" flags since such routers are excluded from the ranking Blutmagie has a "x" flag for "bad exit", no HDdir flag Rueckgr has a "h" HDdir flag, but no "bad exit" flag

1 0

Blutmagie is Good Looking and VERY SLOW -- this script is VERY FAST
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

For those who like Blutemagie's excellent Tor node report and ranking, but find the painfully slow page rendering --well painful. This script pulls the same data via the CSV download and generates concise readable text report. 100x faster literally. Also a script for the newer Rueckgr.at TorStatus page. This one shows self-measure bandwidth instead of 24-hour average actual bandwidth.

1 0

How to determine demand/need for bridges/PT?
by Steve Snyder 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

Looking at the Tor Metrics page, I can see the number of bridges and the number of users connecting via bridges, but that's not enough information to determine satisfaction of demand. Are there now enough bridges to comfortably satisfy demand? Enough bridges with a particular PT type? If not, what kind of resources are lacking? How does one determine where the need for more bridges, or PT type, is greatest? (Assuming that there is any unmet need at all.)

3 2

Tor relays without AESNI
by nobody 17 Sep '15

17 Sep '15

Hi all, I am looking at renting a dedicated server on a unmetered 100 Mbit/s connection, but the CPU is a Intel G850, which is old (Q2 2011) and does not have AES-NI. Will this CPU be too slow to make use of the bandwidth? Thanks,

5 4

Preventing wp-admin related abuse report
by spiros_spiros＠freemail.gr 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Greetings community, Over last eight weeks a Tor exit that I operate has attracted more and more abuse reports and the VPS data centre is starting to lose their patience with the amount of tickets they open for each incident. Almost all of the abuse reports are relate to attempts to access wordpress blogs by exploiting wp-admin or other scripts, and the servers are protected by bitninja, abusix, spamcop etc to automatically send abuse complaint. I am now receiving average of 2-3 per week. I have two questions. First question - is everyone getting this high amount of wordpress related attacks from exits? Second - are there recommended steps to take to reduce or prevent this kind of activity? Things I try so far: - run exit on reduced policy (obviously not going to have an impact on abuse traffic but did make the data centre people happy for a while) - full security check on VPS including tripwire, clamav, lastcomm etc to assure provider that the VPS is not compromised - Tor port on server has website running explaining that this is a Tor exit and linking to more information - I have offered to work with ISP to change WHOIS to my email address, but they do not seem keen on it (some blacklists that the server is added to will also block the /16 of the IP range) - Block offended host on the firewall (as a last resort) Thanks for any suggestions Spiros

7 9

Middle Relay has no traffic
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

>My middle relay seems to have minimal traffic. >Is there something I need to do or is my damn >IPS (Comcast) blocking me. > >Node name is gmojo02 > >gm Possibly the Comcast gateway NAT is unable to deal with lots of connections andj/or it may be an older, slow model that can't handle much traffic. Or possibly your connection is just at the low end of the bandwidth spectrum. You can see all the Comcast relays ranked by traffic by going to https: // torstatus dot blutemagie dot de and at the bottom of the page selecting Advanced Search: hostname contains comcast Some options: 1) have a new gateway swapped in 2) upgrade to faster service 3) switch to a static IP (an option for business customers) and configure the relay on the static IP so it bypasses the Comcast device's NAT 4) switch to Verizon FiOS, which is 5x better than Comcast for the same money 5) make sure the system running the relay is reasonably fast, i.e. 1.8GHz or better and had a decent quality NIC; run speedtest_cli.py and it should match your ostensible Comcast bandwidth w/r/t (4) check out what happened to my relay after switching from 3up/18down Comcast to 75up/75down FiOS https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/4F0DB7E687FC7C0AE55C8F243DA8B0EB27FBF… (keeping in mind the relay is well tuned) You can see all the FiOS relays on Blutmagie with hostname contains comcast

4 5

Re: [tor-relays] Middle Relay has no traffic
by torrry＠Safe-mail.net 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

As starlight said, you are getting the appropriate amount of traffic according to the bandwidth authority measurements for your relay. Right now, the middle/entry nodes are relatively lightly utilized. This is a good thing, since it makes for a much better user experience. With high utilization, the web browsing experience deteriorates dramatically as network request latency goes up.

1 0

Middle Relay has no traffic
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

[know I'm breaking the thread--sorry about that] >Starlight - I see your advertised BW is >7.26MB = 58.08 Mb with globe showing 2 >to 4 Mb traffic. Maybe I will up the >advertised BW on the relay and see if >that helps. That's not "advertised" bandwidth in the sense of something that can be adjusted by the operator. It's the relay self- measurement and is the fastest sustained speed the relay has observed in the last 24 hours. You can see this information in the 'state' file on the BW...Max lines. Verizon recently took down the connection here for 18 hours (central-office upgrade work for their new 100/100 promotion; they will not admit it and gave no warning --Verizon is not a perfect company either). Normally the self-measure peaks at around 80-90% or so of actual bandwidth and the 7256KB value is on the low side of it's range. Self-measure for GMOJO02 is 204KB or 1.6Mbits/second. The BWauths have the relay as: 2-gablemoo--w Bandwidth=204 Measured=33 5-moria1----w Bandwidth=204 Measured=59 3-maatuska--w Bandwidth=204 Measured=82 -- median 1-longclaw--w Bandwidth=204 Measured=131 4-Faravahar-w Bandwidth=204 Measured=185 I see this configured for GMOJO02: BandwidthBurst 307200 BandwidthRate 204800 The self-measure shows this relay is getting exactly what it should based on the settings. If you want more you must increase these values. This is what I ran with before the switch: BandwidthBurst 1200000 BandwidthRate 325000 Where the 325KB average-max is 85% of the 3MBit maximum capacity of the Comcast link (375KB) and is intended to prevent Comcast's aggressive and problematic traffic shaping from kicking in. The BWauth/Torflow system presently targets 25-35% available bandwidth utilization and the latter settings above will cause the relay to obtain something like the consensus 0.015934% value show by Globe for the relay here back just before the switch to FiOS, while the relay you have is presently at 0.000232%. Keep in mind the percentages fall steadily due to overall bandwidth of the Tor network increasing. The BWauth value for the relay here was something like 230k if I recall correctly.

1 0