- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

load balance across multiple WAN?
by Rupert Roe 21 Feb '15

21 Feb '15

Hi, I currently run this middle node from a residental VDSL connection: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/D0D6992508E64E28A77373B82798AB196BFA5… I am currently limited by the upload speed of my connection (~20MBit), I was wondering if I had another VDSL connection installed would I be able to load balance the upload of the relay across the two connections? Or would this mess up the routing for my relay? I.e. traffic comes in to the single published relay IP (which is OK as it's ~80MBit download). Then the relay can push ~40MBit upload load balanced across two 20MBit connections. Would it be problematic because the traffic would come from two different IPs, one of which does not match the published IP for the relay? I hope that question makes sense?? Thanks -- +447867537146 skype: rupertroe1 --

3 3

eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet.
by Jeremy Olexa 21 Feb '15

21 Feb '15

Hi List, I'm seeing these messages in one of my relays. Pretty often, too. eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet. Apparent source was <IP>:<port> I've searched this and found references[1] to a faulty resolver of some type and torservers.net ignores the message[2]. I use my ISPs resolvers which are physically close to the server. In an attempt to fix this, I've added a caching local resolver to my server and configured resolv.conf properly (problem persists). Then I switched to Google DNS with caching in front (problem persists). Can anyone clarify what the problem may be? Or is it no problem at all? [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2013-July/002209.html [2]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2011-December/001034.html Thanks! -Jeremy

6 5

(no subject)
by Volker Mink 20 Feb '15

20 Feb '15

3 2

Again Hibernations vs. limits, for the extreme case
by Filippo Valsorda 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

I run a relay with decently high bandwidth, but limited monthly transit (3TB out). https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/2EC042F4274CC8A54381C78E8D1BF322FA26A0… I gathered from previous discussions that a fast node that goes into hibernation is more beneficial to the network than an artificially throttled node. So I set a hibernation limit and no speed limit. However, it looks like my node is fast enough to burn all the transit in a couple of days when it has consensus, and (1 month - 2 days) is enough time to get forgotten. So I'm probably stuck in a cycle of month 1. slowly ramp up speed and consensus; go into hibernation for a few days; lose the Guard flag (-> get more traffic); month 2. burn all the transit in 2 days go into hibernation for >25 days GOTO month 1 Is it still the case that I shouldn't put throttling in, even if this means that each other month I'll run at really low speed to ramp up consensus? Or should I combine the Hibernate setting with a reasonable limit of maybe 1 MB/s? Or maybe use daily limits in this case? (Please CC me, I might not read in-list-only replies) Thanks, Filippo

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] "Very Safe" Exit Policy
by Raynardine 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

On 02/18/2015 09:01 AM, Chris Patti wrote: > Bleah. > > Pesky humans:) Yes, it's always the problem of fitting imperfect components into a perfect system that ruins everyone's day. :P

1 0

"Very Safe" Exit Policy
by Stephen R Guglielmo 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

Hi list, I was looking for suggestions/discussion on very conservative policies for an exit relay. I run a relay now that is "reject *:*" and I wanted to open up a few exit ports. I don't want to open up major ports due to potential abuse issues. My server host states that, although they do allow Tor, there is a chance of the relay being terminated at their will [1]. I was considering using a whitelist exit policy and opening up only the following ports to be "safe": 43 - WHOIS protocol 53 - DNS 389 - LDAP 464,543,544,749 - Kerberos 531 - AOL IM 636 - LDAP over SSL 706 - SLIC 873 - rsync 5190 - ICQ and AOL Instant Messenger 5222,5223,5269,5280,5281,5298 - XMPP 5353 - Multicast DNS 5999 - CVSup 8332,8333 - Bitcoin 9091 -Transmission (BitTorrent client) Web Interface 11371 - OpenPGP key server 64738 - Mumble/Murmur I constructed the list based on a quick skimming of the WP ports list [2]. I suspect allowing IRC would eventually be grounds for my host to terminate my relay. This would be my first time running an exit relay and I'd be happy to hear advice and suggestions! Thanks, Steve [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ISPCorrespondence#OVH [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers

9 11

new ansible-tor features: automatic instance configuration + automatic MyFamily generation (PATCH)
by Nusenu 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi David, thanks for creating ansible-tor. I added two features that are crucial to me and maybe useful for others as well. If you like it, feel free to merge - this is my first ansible experience and it is lightly tested. Example: lets say you have added a new server to your inventory. The server has 3 public IP addresses (1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3). After running ansible-tor with the new changes you will have the following 6 tor instances/ORPorts running (without manually specifying IP addresses first): 1.1.1.1:80 1.1.1.1:443 2.2.2.2:80 2.2.2.2:443 3.3.3.3:80 3.3.3.3:443 including MyFamily configuration across all servers/instances. regards, Nusenu changes ======= - - auto instance deployment without manual IP/ORPort configuration (new) starts 2 tor instances per available IP address by default makes manually specifying IP addresses and ORPorts via proc_instances obsolete ORPorts default to 80 and 443 (DirPort not added yet) replace "single.yml" + "instances.yml" -> instance.yml only (handles both cases dynamically) - - MyFamily autogeneration (new) Keeping all relay fingerprints in sync is probably one of the most annoying tasks for a relay operator managing multiple relays, now ansible takes care of this (all relays need to be in the 'relays' group) - - directory structure (changed) defaults: configs -> /etc/tor/<ip>_<orport>.torrc log dir -> /var/log/tor/<ip>_<orport>.log datadir -> /var/lib/tor/<ip>_<orport>/ pid dir -> /var/run/tor/<ip>_<orport>.pid (previously everything was located in /etc) - - added torrc sanity check (tor --verify-config ) (new) - - torrc files are owned by root (previously owned by $tor_user) - - the pid file check has been removed since the file is not required to exist (it will be created when tor starts) open - ----- - - it does not take care of instance removals yet (in case IPs are no longer available or amount of ORPorts have been reduced) - - allow opt-out -> only 1 tor instance per host (even if there are more IPs available) - - DirPort support - - detect RFC1918 IPs (opt-in) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU4i+CAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0y+kP/i4Mn/XClgXYloGdgWU9UPR+ Y8yZv97FvJOMPI40tccPKcNPcLQFRvGFYkR96sAOGoMfbJT/tQeH2dOxwAEF31mv afFkLsVPAOpNzlyO2qP1mkLtB/aYXtZ6jb2+JtpAhVBLKOVFBN2nNRiwdgFYZFGy f0ZIp7xyR9XcAhXo4nc0hlETREAnbMOgFGM6vqqIpJfimF3liE6va5HNw2CD+7Zd MmeIOuVNvQh09SiYf48AJpBeBRoybOvmFIPphtXEYlC/y6cd/IyUIYdOBuaLa5td vQnrQOC7TUgp74uarl0yaatOYOEagl0lrNeN6+Vgy5e0e12TgVccWW5ZosM1PBXG VH2FTfjHXUO+VN0p4xn6AS0dhWTRKb7isj3jpznTMsiq0AcvXM6DZjkzkcCPChVz jptdUbNvgpdP7j5X11iZniGpxVe7aFo2wCzgZORY1xMysiigJsL4M/nonr4YO4G9 w7kyNcco9gStklJSvOJXbfX4HrOCuWdq8hp4xubyON+5jpEUgMmG1o/v5NJANV4C CLzlz4kf9l9o351Z7DJQzilxzDEwe6oZwSWnsq+yB65Mgj5sUJnchi40iPLOHSUr DaVSSUxoZ8VVNYqqvGYb2fysYa7DsCgofsF/eXP4QyJp1WFNwc0ft6qIhyAGIDwx RfwQHrA+Lg95mdXDyr0B =QHkD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 15

Re: [tor-relays] new ansible-tor features: automatic instance configuration + automatic MyFamily generation (PATCH)
by Raynardine 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

On 02/17/2015 04:01 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote: > My algorithm. Hm. This all sucks because Tor still doesn't scale across > multiple cores. There should be more affordable dedicated host service providers that provide professionally overclocked servers. Liquid nitrogen isn't that expensive to generate, if you use solar power to make the electricity required more affordable. It seems dedicated servers are becoming less and less common as virtual private servers attract cheap customers. For things like Tor that are dumb and can only bind to a single core, overclocking and overvolting that one core professionally could be a practical business venture. Unfortunately, due to the nature of mixnets like Tor, unless a large number of equivalent service providers do it, the benefit provided is minimal at best. The Tor relay pool is strongest when the hosting providers are as diverse as possible. If 51% of Tor relays are hosted by the same company and in the same country, Tor may as well not exist.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Mozilla-Middles losing guard
by Raynardine 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

On 02/17/2015 02:59 PM, lpwzi9i84(a)use.startmail.com wrote: > ...but what we want are nonmalicious guards, right? If you want non-malicious guards, you may consider manually configuring bridge relays. Manually verifying and authenticating the identity of bridge relay operators is probably the only sure way to get non-malicious guard relays.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Mozilla-Middles losing guard
by lpwzi9i84＠use.startmail.com 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

at this very moment all of them got the flag, right. But theyre loosing it at seemingly random order. I kept an eye on Atlas for some time, at 18:00 (UTC+1) Mozilla13 was at 1.51 MB/s without Guardflag. On Tue, February 17, 2015 19:50, Nusenu <nusenu(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > >> i am wondering about losing of guard state of the Mozilla Middle >> Relays. > what makes you think they [1] lost guard flag? > > [1] https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/mozilla > https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU442PAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0FbUP/27q3GoeFaqEEjRrd88w3S5C > PGhX0yPe/0zZzTCWwBR8GR44qm6XyO6rQloGVFJAbcUfPjZEvYSED3CVDfgiuoIb > t9mg4nH5W6ZMMGQJhT+wmKZTFOIK68nZpfmtlsrAfstbQ4NMj4QHOb1mDos+XnE5 > DPYvjmfiarVbghM5KsB6w8s26bqT/By5coxEdGOlHLv5E8iqUpCUYWP45FAcY7uE > MGp7smOheykVF7MsNHG8uhWaEp63jSKS0hgqAXYQJfyAheo5y+zuoA6rL+7J7CqK > 9VRRg33qmCnuT4uRrk51Ggdbl9yS2qtJEnPVzxGJc8433wKHut6PlNz0SnusLuDN > Hal0ndXp0ZjQrAysBvMGJ7pcR/7+pw3kmLSyXfszMZVh4gkkWjDXdfQa3kTORdJ2 > XrIs/E+IqhwEGt1Sj+CcQBLiVJ0Wp3HMFl94rVH0qB2UhracoJ+tCfEvmKW8fZWf > lKpAZYGUgROgI1NHyyaFnhxvCPxma/bLjqjShaDJNR5Dak8DFHqzHnP78Y4w9hZm > 5Kk54Tg+jqjWapnwHQwgIj+mk8KiacqMirjHm5gBGRa34E8TZmoyZgINE+yRH4cj > ogvopd2DJerDwOaYb66ed1r1gsg78eDfBPE27kwAzfsY3ur/G6JDCTv3vSsyoO5r > XABeYlaQuf760OikXwXV > =aJUd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

4 5

Mozilla-Middles losing guard
by lpwzi9i84＠use.startmail.com 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

Hi, i am wondering about losing of guard state of the Mozilla Middle Relays. Is it cause of 1 physical machine handles 6 IP's, 2 Relays each? Maybe the total bandwidth should shared by 4 IP's, 2 Relays each to increase the chance to keep a bandwidth throughput beyond 2 MB/s. Guardstate will be rejected by falling below 2MB/s, right? Just wondering if the Mozilla setup could be more smoothed... cheers (this emailadress will expire automatically after 2 weeks)

2 1

Tor weather - signature not found
by mattia 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Hi all, I have recently converted a bridge to a relay. Its fingerprint is 0D14A4498E7D1854696CC07548653EA4CD3CB2DA. I wanted to subscribe to Tor Weather but when I try I get the "We could not locate a Tor node with that fingerprint." error. Searching the web I found it was a common error years ago, but shouldn't be now. Any ideas about it? Thanks!

5 6

tor weather not sending emails?
by Nusenu 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Hi, I subscribed to tor weather to get notifications in case something is wrong with a relay. Although the relay had several downtimes (>1 day), I never got an email. (I subscribed to with the minimal setting 1 hour) Did anyone get emails from tor weather in the past 2-3 weeks during downtimes? thanks!

5 8

Value of an unused bridge?
by Elliott Jin 14 Feb '15

14 Feb '15

Hi all, I've had an EC2 bridge <https://globe.torproject.org/#/bridge/FD0814BDD15B2E591B04868B988D87FC6D331…> up for 2 weeks, and it seems to have gotten no usage. I'm considering converting it into a middle relay instead, but before I do so, I'm just wondering: - Is there value in having a marginal unused bridge "in reserve"? - Is this value greater than that of an active middle relay? Thanks! -Elliott -- Anonymous Feedback <http://www.admonymous.com/eyjin>

4 4

Thoughts on new relay
by Niklas Femerstrand 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Moin, Our relay is online as of Jan 23 and recently I've been thinking about pivoting it into a bridge instead. The relay lives in Cambodia and may naturally be a bit off from the rest of the network (latency). Consensus weight is steadily increasing despite various initial downtime incidents, which you can see in Atlas graphs. (We've had some network upgrades and during a separate event even had a monkey yanking the eth from the nic.) Currently we advertise 435.66 KB/s and with our current ~9d 10h uptime we have downloaded 3.6 GB resp uploaded 3.7 GB. Theoretically our tubes fit 10 Mbps download and 30 Mbps upload. The question is whether the relay is worth keeping with its current setup or if we can contribute more by re-configuring into a bridge. Unfortunately it is very risky for us to allow exit traffic, but we <3 any cipher packet. Please advice! https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/94F806110B23E727AE8BAD74DD95B0EE0B7A8… Regards, King Kong -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJU2gGzAAoJEHxAR3sGx+rLTzEP/05TJK3vzfPe3kUjUfg0G/wm vlc1vZLshAvK/pE1mf2DqDSgnuxR+QHHJI8htJOaU5VJVMlnEy4nsF0uE76It1EW OLUo7+LU452Sx7XjyVYMKOu6OJ9kD1Cg6OkNT2HEIOR+57x7vNJTYr7oF0uNu6dt UzVFJKkM3Y1ca4GsMS2M/oXFw2jGrrvmx4DLHu2OSDwNumy3ndOETnZscVfErAMK A/K4JI0Ws6pInBRciEHdak9ZBkR/f9jYGPbUXOSwnJN6XIsawijTIbrRLfYiUcro 0wj6mZYqXgKRDOvP57UNkf5UaolADQb6ssiLkhhAGu+DHnTt5V8g2vkqtY3wU02N 823X7o3oNZYq5yZFTbexH8Al+ys9KvKlu5q0YRYvbBwvI/yGHyr/gEI7ufV+9tZ6 z9Mo2hCBsaM0vrikBzejhjSw5qc4HcwMKErlC3cHQHIbszryu1O0WY1G22pwYgss mAGDr6OcdeIdMyNcJlpyH8+jToRSJrkAwDSPdQz+IVMq785x0GnOo2uV2/7NTr2J +LVUjSjAenRhPX+TrAFFujNYXZf5uD/EUfsGyUyCdBhJ5PWsLjYQ/EYD6PToDX8P BdocR3XfxZS7nD5PYRDfyWNeckCL6VPrnZrgMGIYBEXAn7jhX608vzmZV7IU7mzv 3NrnDWpllK4M42hT7fXs =hV51 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Is Bridges supposed to get a gurard flag?.
by Sasikantha babu 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

Hello All, I've been running a non-exit relay at home and a bridge on amazon cloud since dec-2014. And today I had noticed on atlas my bridge has got a guard flag and from the logs in the last 18 hours it had sent 4.73 GB and received 4.89 GB (finally I'm happy to see bandwidth being used on bridge). I've the following questions 1. Is a bridge supposed to get a guard flag ?. 2. Is there a difference between a guard flag of a relay and a guard flag of a bridge?. Thanks

2 1

question and concering about probability of exitnode
by tor＠viisauksena.de 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

hi, just want to note, i am proud to have an german exit node with 11Mbs .. but also concerned about this raising exit node probability, actually it reads for me like 1 of 400 tor-users is going through this exit (by recalculating a exit probability of 0.25 %) - this concerns me because it should not be so easy (running just some days on a vserver) and i don't know how high this will raise ? i mean, its easy for me to guess a nsa/gchq/bnd bad-ass-club can get some hundred vservers running, and get tor exclusively exits .. and guard (which was much more easy, i lost it because i quickly run out of maximum limit for a month, so i cut it, but the 1 day downtime lost me the guard flag) just my opinion .. and if you can show me some more information over the numbers of exits and guards and so on, i would be happy, cant believe there are so less many exit nodes out there ... thx, Jens

2 2

Minimizing service interruption when reloading torrc?
by Elliott Jin 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

Hi all, I'd like to reload torrc; I think I can do this by either restarting tor or by sending a SIGHUP to the tor process, but I'm not sure how much of a service interruption each of these approaches will cause. What's the best way to reload torrc (i.e. how can I do this in a way that minimizes the service interruption)? Thanks! -Elliott -- Anonymous Feedback <http://www.admonymous.com/eyjin>

3 3

Relay operators: help improve this hardening document?
by Nick Mathewson 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Hi, all! There's a project going on to try to add instructions for hardening a Tor relay for security: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13703 The idea is that Tor could ship with some basic recommendations, and links to places to find more advice? Recently, "mmcc" has uploaded a new draft. Do we think this is better than nothing and worth shipping with Tor, or does it need big changes? If possible, please write comments on the trac ticket above: it will help keep all the discussion in one place. best wishes, -- Nick

7 6

Changes in network traffic pattern
by Hu Man 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Hi All I have been running a tor relay for about a year and according to my munin graph It normally receives, on average, just under 2,000 incoming tcp connections on port 443 every 5 minutes. In the last few days that figure has increased to about 10,000 and spiked to about 19,000 incoming requests every 5 minutes. First thought was DDOS but traffic is not high enough to cause any problems. I did some digging and in a 5 minute period received the following requests to the port tor is listening on (number of requests and source ip address) 2722 SRC=107.167.22.79 1355 SRC=107.167.22.90 1334 SRC=104.37.244.131 1237 SRC=213.251.185.14 604 SRC=188.247.130.32 13 DST=178.200.216.58 7 SRC=92.63.110.232 6 SRC=5.196.8.208 6 SRC=200.76.82.231 6 DST=93.158.248.243 This is only the top 10 source ip addresses. I had a look and none of the top few seem to be tor relays. Just wondering if others are seeing a large number of requests from the above ip addresses or if it's just me. If it is just me then I can easily just block these ip addresses.

3 2

Avoiding using my own Exit
by Chris Tilt 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Hello, When running a relay that is configured as an Exit, do you run the risk of your own TOR browsing sessions (initiated from the same private network) using the relay and effectively short-circuiting the location randomization? Note that I don't have a relay up yet, so my question may be lacking clarity. Cheers, Chris

2 1

TOR: Inbound, Outbound, Exit connections
by Ralph Bolliger 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

*Good evening ladies and gentleman* I'm running a TOR Exit for a few days now ( https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/06BA80D9E1143CFAD835442142A3FA5A1E4FD9…) I'm also using TOR ARM in order to monitor TOR's performance, log messages and connections. When I have a look at the connections page on TOR ARM I read about «Inbound», «Outbound» or «Exit» connections. I searched the web already. But I wasn't able to find a site that explains in simple words what's the difference between «Inbound», «Outbound» or «Exit» connections. Is there anybody who is able to tell me what «Inbound», «Outbound» or «Exit» connections are? Greetings from Switzerland Information Architect

2 1

Making your relay submit hidden service statistics
by George Kadianakis 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

Hello people, some days ago we sent a mail [1] asking for feedback on our patch that collects hidden service statistics from Tor relays. Specifically, we are trying to answer the questions: "Approximately how many hidden services are there?" and "Approximately how much traffic of the Tor network is going to hidden services?". For more information see my previous email and the relevant proposals. Our code [2] got merged in upstream Tor some days ago and now we are looking for more volunteers to enable it on their relays. We will collect these statistics during the next [days] weeks, and in a month we plan to publish a short report with our findings. To help us you will need to use the very latest version of Tor and also slightly edit your torrc. Here are some instructions for Debian/Ubuntu [3]: ----- Let's start by slightly editing your regular Tor torrc to enable hidden service statistics. Please append the folowing to your regular torrc (not including quotes): """ HiddenServiceStatistics 1 """ Now, we need to install a bleeding edge version of Tor that can do hidden service statistics. You can either use the git master [3], or use Tor's APT repositories. The following instructions help you with the latter approach. Please start by following "Option two" of https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian so that you add the proper APT repositories and install tor and the deb.torproject.org-keyring package. Next, add the following line to your sources.lst: deb http://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org tor-nightly-master-wheezy main (you might need to replace 'wheezy' with your distribution, like you did in the previous step) Now, do # apt-get update # apt-get install tor which should upgrade your Tor to the latest nightly version., Your system Tor should now be up-to-date and able to collect hidden service statistics! Just start Tor as you normally do, using the torrc we modified above. For example you could simply do: # tor -f torrc but feel free to use your init script if you prefer that. Now just leave your relay do its thing, and keep an eye to this mailing list around mid-January 2015 for the results of our research. --- FWIW, if you are not using Debian, you can use the master branch of the official git repository: https://git.torproject.org/tor.git You will also need to edit your torrc in the same manner as the Debian instructions. Feel free to reply with any questions you have! Thanks! George Kadianakis Karsten Loesing Aaron Johnson David Goulet [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-December/007968.html [2]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13192 [3]: for example see http://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/75/how-can-i-install-tor-from-the-so…

1 1

Long running relay keeping low bandwidth utilization
by mail＠dotjhw.pw 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

Dear list, I am wondering, wether it is still within what is considered a normal lifecycle, if the relay I am running is utilizing significantly less than the available bandwidth? Some background info: I set the relay up a few months ago and experienced higher utilization after a few days. around the end of 2014, I experienced hardware failure with the relay's machine and it went offline on December 21. I just managed to bring it back online on January 13. Since then, even with an available bandwidth in the range of 5-10Mbit/s, the actually used bandwidth is averaging at 8-9kbit/s, with no increase in sight. As far the bandwidths and weights graphs are concerned, it seems like the relay is not weighted as high anymore (last known consensus weight before the crash: 2.22e-5. After the crash and rebuild: 2.01e-6). Is there anything I can do to improve the relay? Best regards, .jhw

2 2

Re: [tor-relays] Hibernating / Traffic limit and consequrnces for the network.
by Sebastian Urbach 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

On February 1, 2015 10:48:25 PM Markus Hitter <mah(a)jump-ing.de> wrote: > Am 01.02.2015 um 20:02 schrieb Sebastian Urbach: > > I would like to provide a good service for everyone, even at the end > > of the month. That's getting harder the more systems are not present > > at the end of the month. > > I could understand the discussion if it were about providing 500 kBit > continuously vs. 1 Mbit for 2 of 4 >weeks. But the particular case was > about providing no >less than 6 Mbit continuously, which is easily >enough > to comfortably browse the web, for doing large >downloads and probably > exhausts most internet >connections in unfree countries. Accordingly it's > >unlikely a single connection is hobbled by such a >bandwidth limitation. Ah, thats a misunderstanding. This is not part 2 of the discussion from a few days ago. I brought it up because i see this for quite a while right now and observed it again within the last days. I thought it was time for a broader discussion. -- Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations / M.f.G. Sebastian Urbach ----------------------------------------- Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth. ----------------------------------------- Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956), American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist and critic.

2 1