- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Police request regarding relay
by Finn 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

Hello everyone, We are hosting multiple relays under our AS 210558 and received an email from a local police station in Germany requesting user data, nothing unusual. The weird thing is, that the relay in question is only a relay and not an exit node since its creation (185.241.208.179) (https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetStats/w/relay/B67C7039B04487854129A66B16F5EE3…) - anyone has an idea how this happens? Best regards

5 6

new exit relay
by Linux-Hus Oni 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

Hi to all, i have setup a new tor exit relay with name TorGate, but there are only a few kb trafic on this? the flags are exit,running,v2dir,valid and its also messured. there are no warns or errors in the tor console any ideas why? regards Lin

4 4

Relay Bandwidth
by sysmanager7 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

Greetings all! Setting up a new Digital Ocean Tor Relay. DO is giving me 3000 Gig a month. Is there a tutorial that I can use to calculate the bandwidth? I've searched around the web and for some reason people seem to dance around the question. They give examples not relevant to me and zero math showing how the came to their answer. As usual, any help will be appreciated :-) Sysmanager7 Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] Selecting Exit Addresses
by denny.obreham＠a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net 01 Apr '23

01 Apr '23

The second IP is still in "Exit Addresses" with the new configuration ... https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF7D8F65B… torrc: Address 209.141.39.157 OutboundBindAddress 209.141.39.157 ORPort 9001 IPv4Only Denny denny.obreham(a)a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net wrote .. > Thanks Marco. > > First, I had to change my ORPort to 9001 with your proposed configuration because > using 443 caused an error => "Could not bind to 0.0.0.0:443: Address already in > use. Is Tor already running?" > Probably because my other Tor instance (hidden service) is using it. > > Now I'm just waiting for the metrics to update to see if everything is as expected. > > Finally, thanks for the help with IPv6 because I cannot get it to work. Somehow > when I try to check IPv6 availability ( https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/post-install/ > ), I get "ping6: connect: Network is unreachable". I don't have time to set it > up right now (I already spent hours last week) so I'll get back to you for that. > > Denny > > lists(a)for-privacy.net wrote .. > > Hi denny, > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I just activated my first exit relay. ( > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF7D8F65B > > > 5881B7D4C97C ) I had the following in my torrc (plus some other things): > > > > I've answered the rest to the list. > > If you want to enable IPv6 at Frantech/BuyVM: > > > > First create one in Stallion from your given subnet. > > This is what my /etc/network/interfaces looks like at Frantech > > > > > > # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system > > # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). > > > > source /etc/network/interfaces.d/* > > > > # The loopback network interface > > auto lo > > iface lo inet loopback > > > > # The primary network interface > > allow-hotplug eth0 > > iface eth0 inet static > > address 104.244.73.43/24 > > gateway 104.244.73.1 > > # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed > > dns-nameservers 127.0.0.1 107.189.0.68 107.189.0.69 > > dns-search for-privacy.net > > > > iface eth0 inet6 static > > address 2605:6400:0030:f78b::2/64 > > up ip -6 route add 2605:6400:0030::1 dev eth0 > > up ip -6 route add default via 2605:6400:0030::1 > > down ip -6 route del default via 2605:6400:0030::1 > > down ip -6 route del 2605:6400:0030::1 dev eth0 > > dns-nameservers ::1 IPv6ns1 IPv6ns2 > > > > > > -- > > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > > > Debian GNU/Linux > > > > It's free software and it gives you freedom!

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Selecting Exit Addresses
by denny.obreham＠a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net 01 Apr '23

01 Apr '23

OK, finally got a configuration that looks like it works: Address 209.141.39.157 OutboundBindAddress 209.141.39.157 ORPort 209.141.39.157:9001 IPv4Only ORPort XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:443 NoListen ORPort XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:9001 NoListen Where XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX is the IP I didn't want to be used by my Tor exit relay. (The IPv4 flag is probably useless, I just didn't think to take it out after adding the IP to the port.) I'll see if abuse reports for my second IP will stop showing up on abuseipdb.com. Unless you find I did something wrong, thanks for helping, Denny denny.obreham(a)a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net wrote .. > The second IP is still in "Exit Addresses" with the new configuration ... https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF7D8F65B… > > torrc: > > Address 209.141.39.157 > OutboundBindAddress 209.141.39.157 > ORPort 9001 IPv4Only > > Denny > > denny.obreham(a)a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net wrote .. > > Thanks Marco. > > > > First, I had to change my ORPort to 9001 with your proposed configuration because > > using 443 caused an error => "Could not bind to 0.0.0.0:443: Address already > in > > use. Is Tor already running?" > > Probably because my other Tor instance (hidden service) is using it. > > > > Now I'm just waiting for the metrics to update to see if everything is as expected. > > > > Finally, thanks for the help with IPv6 because I cannot get it to work. Somehow > > when I try to check IPv6 availability ( https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/post-install/ > > ), I get "ping6: connect: Network is unreachable". I don't have time to set it > > up right now (I already spent hours last week) so I'll get back to you for that. > > > > Denny > > > > lists(a)for-privacy.net wrote .. > > > Hi denny, > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I just activated my first exit relay. ( > > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF7D8F65B > > > > 5881B7D4C97C ) I had the following in my torrc (plus some other things): > > > > > > I've answered the rest to the list. > > > If you want to enable IPv6 at Frantech/BuyVM: > > > > > > First create one in Stallion from your given subnet. > > > This is what my /etc/network/interfaces looks like at Frantech > > > > > > > > > # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system > > > # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). > > > > > > source /etc/network/interfaces.d/* > > > > > > # The loopback network interface > > > auto lo > > > iface lo inet loopback > > > > > > # The primary network interface > > > allow-hotplug eth0 > > > iface eth0 inet static > > > address 104.244.73.43/24 > > > gateway 104.244.73.1 > > > # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed > > > dns-nameservers 127.0.0.1 107.189.0.68 107.189.0.69 > > > dns-search for-privacy.net > > > > > > iface eth0 inet6 static > > > address 2605:6400:0030:f78b::2/64 > > > up ip -6 route add 2605:6400:0030::1 dev eth0 > > > up ip -6 route add default via 2605:6400:0030::1 > > > down ip -6 route del default via 2605:6400:0030::1 > > > down ip -6 route del 2605:6400:0030::1 dev eth0 > > > dns-nameservers ::1 IPv6ns1 IPv6ns2 > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > > > > > Debian GNU/Linux > > > > > > It's free software and it gives you freedom!

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Selecting Exit Addresses
by denny.obreham＠a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net 31 Mar '23

31 Mar '23

Thanks Marco. First, I had to change my ORPort to 9001 with your proposed configuration because using 443 caused an error => "Could not bind to 0.0.0.0:443: Address already in use. Is Tor already running?" Probably because my other Tor instance (hidden service) is using it. Now I'm just waiting for the metrics to update to see if everything is as expected. Finally, thanks for the help with IPv6 because I cannot get it to work. Somehow when I try to check IPv6 availability ( https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/post-install/ ), I get "ping6: connect: Network is unreachable". I don't have time to set it up right now (I already spent hours last week) so I'll get back to you for that. Denny lists(a)for-privacy.net wrote .. > Hi denny, > > > Hi, > > > > I just activated my first exit relay. ( > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF7D8F65B > > 5881B7D4C97C ) I had the following in my torrc (plus some other things): > > I've answered the rest to the list. > If you want to enable IPv6 at Frantech/BuyVM: > > First create one in Stallion from your given subnet. > This is what my /etc/network/interfaces looks like at Frantech > > > # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system > # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). > > source /etc/network/interfaces.d/* > > # The loopback network interface > auto lo > iface lo inet loopback > > # The primary network interface > allow-hotplug eth0 > iface eth0 inet static > address 104.244.73.43/24 > gateway 104.244.73.1 > # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed > dns-nameservers 127.0.0.1 107.189.0.68 107.189.0.69 > dns-search for-privacy.net > > iface eth0 inet6 static > address 2605:6400:0030:f78b::2/64 > up ip -6 route add 2605:6400:0030::1 dev eth0 > up ip -6 route add default via 2605:6400:0030::1 > down ip -6 route del default via 2605:6400:0030::1 > down ip -6 route del 2605:6400:0030::1 dev eth0 > dns-nameservers ::1 IPv6ns1 IPv6ns2 > > > -- > ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > Debian GNU/Linux > > It's free software and it gives you freedom!

1 0

Selecting Exit Addresses
by denny.obreham＠a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net 31 Mar '23

31 Mar '23

Hi, I just activated my first exit relay. ( https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF7D8F65B… ) I had the following in my torrc (plus some other things): SocksPort 0 ControlPort 9052 ORPort 209.141.39.157:443 I have 2 IPs on my server and I wanted Tor to use 209.141.39.157. I thought setting it with ORPort would suffice. But under "Exit Addresses" in the metrics it was my other IP. So I added the following in my torrc: Address 209.141.39.157 OutboundBindAddress 209.141.39.157 And now I have both IPs in the "Exit Addresses". How can I prevent my exit relay from using the other IP? Note that I have also another instance of Tor running a hidden service that I intended to run on the other IP. Denny

2 2

Launch of new Tor Weather service
by Georg Koppen 31 Mar '23

31 Mar '23

Hello everyone! As indicated on the last relay operator meetup we were close to re-launching the Tor Weather service. Now, after fixing a bunch of last-minute issues and double-checking everything is working we can finally announce that the newly designed Tor Weather service is ready for public usage. Feel free to try it out at https://weather.torproject.org and help improving it! For those not knowing what this service is about: Tor Weather is offering subscriptions to keep track of the well-being of relays. Right now, after registering an account, one can get an e-mail notification in case a relay goes down or loses some flags or goes below a certain amount of observed bandwidth. The idea is to help operators in managing their relays that way and showing them their contribution to our project is much appreciated. There a many more things we can potentially offer subscriptions for, like getting notifications for upcoming relay operator meetups, having earned a Tor t-shirt, new relay requirements, running outdated Tor versions... You can find a current list of ideas in our bug tracker[1]; feel free to add missing ones and pick up issues to work on. This is a free software project after all. :) We see Tor Weather as an investment into our relay operator community and think it will be useful in the future to help growing and strengthening our community, which is very exciting. Finally, I'd like to give a big shout-out to Sarthik Gupta who did all the heavy-lifting and re-wrote Tor Weather during last years' Google Summer of Code and keeps improving it. Additionally, kez from our sysadmin team was invaluable in getting all the different pieces set up and running on our infrastructure. Thanks as well to all the volunteers, like nusenu, who contributed with ideas and feedback over the years which convinced us that Tor Weather is a worthwhile tool to invest time and energy in again. Georg [1] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/tor-weather/-/issues

2 3

Notification when tor relay goes offline
by Keifer Bly 25 Mar '23

25 Mar '23

2 2

inet_csk_bind_conflict
by Christopher Sheats 21 Mar '23

21 Mar '23

Hello tor-relays, We are using Ubuntu server currently for our exit relays. Occasionally, exit throughput will drop from ~4Gbps down to ~200Mbps and the only observable data point that we have is a significant increase in inet_csk_bind_conflict, as seen via 'perf top', where it will hit 85% [kernel] utilization. A while back we thought we solved with with two /etc/sysctl.conf settings: net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1024 65535 net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1 However we are still experiencing this problem. Both of our (currently, two) relay servers suffer from the same problem, at the same time. They are AMD Epyc 7402P bare-metal servers each with 96GB RAM, each has 20 exit relays on them. This issue persists after upgrading to 0.4.7.11. Screenshots of perf top are shared here: https://digitalcourage.social/@EmeraldOnion/109440197076214023 Does anyone have experience troubleshooting and/or fixing this problem? Cheers, -- Christopher Sheats (yawnbox) Executive Director Emerald Onion Signal: +1 206.739.3390 Website: https://emeraldonion.org/ Mastodon: https://digitalcourage.social/@EmeraldOnion/

6 20

Next Tor Relay Operator Meetup - March 4, 2023 (19 UTC)
by gus 20 Mar '23

20 Mar '23

Hi, The next Tor Relay Operator Meetup will happen on March 4, 2023, at 19 UTC! We're still working on the agenda, feel free to add your topics and/or questions on the pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-relay-op-meetup-m4-keep onionsite: http://kfahv6wfkbezjyg4r6mlhpmieydbebr5vkok5r34ya464gqz6c44bnyd.onion/p/tor… WHERE Room link: https://tor.meet.coop/gus-og0-x74-dzn Registration No need for a registration or anything else, just use the room-link above. We will open the room 10 minutes before so you can test your mic setup. Please share with your friends, social media and other mailing lists! Gus -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead

6 7

Confusing bridge signs...
by Keifer Bly 18 Mar '23

18 Mar '23

Hi, So my bridge at https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/4D6E3CA2110FC36D3106C86940A1… says it has “none “, though the torrc file has it set to be distributed publicly. I'm wondering why the bridge would say that, when it obviously is being used as it's apparently blocked in Russia? I have not personally given the bridge to anyone. Thanks. --Keifer

5 25

export iptables metrics
by Toralf Förster 18 Mar '23

18 Mar '23

I found the time and wrote a Bash script [1] to export iptables and ipset metrics to Prometheus/Grafana. It works at least with [2]. [1] https://github.com/toralf/torutils/blob/main/metrics.sh [2] https://github.com/toralf/torutils#readme -- Toralf

1 0

Too Many Connections
by Jeff Teitel 16 Mar '23

16 Mar '23

My node is overloaded with connections. Conntrack.sh shows count: 65535. By far the majority (50k+) are to/from my own IP. This sometimes makes my node unreachable. And now it is reporting the StaleDesc flag. There is nothing else running on this node (except bind9). I've already set up tor-ddos. What else can I do? -- Jeff Teitel e-Mail: Jeff(a)Teitel.net Mobile: +1-202-271-1238 (he/his)

2 1

Relay requirements
by Sydney 11 Mar '23

11 Mar '23

Newbie here. No network experience but already running 2 TOR instances: 1 TOR service + 1 bridge. I would like to "upgrade" to TOR relays but have a few questions relating to hardware needs. The [TOR-friendly] ISP I'm looking at have these 4 offers available: [1] 1 core @ 3.1GHz 1 GB RAM 10 TB/mo @ 5 Gbps BW [2] 1 core @ 3.1GHz 2 GB RAM10 TB/mo @ 5 Gbps BW [3] 2 core @ 3.1GHz4 GB RAM20 TB/mo @ 5 Gbps BW [4] 3 core @ 3.1GHz 12 GB RAM30 TB/mo @ 5 Gbps BW From [relay requirements](https://community.torproject.org/relay/relays-requirements/), my understanding is that [1] is what is expected for a guard or middle relay and [2] for an exit relay. My preferred choice at the moment is [3] where I would like to have 3 relays (one of each type; 3.5 GB RAM needed). Each relay would be limited to, say, 6.6 TB/mo BW. This would allow me to experiment and get used to the network and its requirements. My questions is about future increase. If I want to increase my offer to the TOR network I could: - Negotiate with my ISP to increase my BW to 30 TB/mo while still running on [3] and increase each BW limit to 10 TB/mo; - Move my 3 relays on [4] and increase each BW limit to 10 TB/mo; - Move my 3 relays on [4], add 2 IP addresses and 6 relays (2 of each type; 10.5 GB RAM needed total), and limit each relay to 3.3 TB/mo. I guess my fundamental question is what is the advantage of running multiple relays of the same type, on the same server? I see some operators running dozens of them, all in the same country, same ISP. Why not just a single relay running with a large capacity? Also, is there a requirement for the number of relays per core? (Maybe this is the answer to my question.) I know my bridge is currently keeping one core of my 2-core server constantly under load. Thank in advance.

3 3

Draft workshop submission "Running a high-performance pluggable transports Tor bridge"
by David Fifield 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Linus Nordberg and I have been working together to run the main Snowflake bridge since April 2022. We are preparing a short paper (4 pages) for the FOCI workshop (https://foci.community/) on the special procedures required to operate a bridge that gets the large volume of traffic that a Snowflake bridge does. This is a draft of the submission: https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/pt-bridge-hiperf/pt-bridge-hiperf.202303… https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/pt-bridge-hiperf/pt-bridge-hiperf.202303… I am posting the draft here to see if anyone has feedback or comments. If you do, our submission deadline is 2023-03-15. The main ideas were worked out in a thread on this very list: https://forum.torproject.net/t/tor-relays-how-to-reduce-tor-cpu-load-on-a-s… The core problem is that a single tor process is limited to a single CPU core. The main fix is to run multiple tor processes, and synchronize their identity and onion keys externally. It has been essential to enable scaling in the Snowflake bridge; but the same trick may be useful (minus the pluggable transport part) for other relays that process a much larger amount of traffic than average, such as large exit relays. (Though it's not clear that one exit with 2× the capacity is really any different than 2 exits in the same family.) This is also somewhat related to the current discussion about increasing the limit on the number of relays per IP address, which is a concession to the limited scalability of one tor process: https://bugs.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/40744 > While this is great in general, it also adds significant complexity > for Tor operators since Tor does not scale well on multi-core CPU's. > In order to effectively use a modern server with a large amount of > threads, you would need to run many Tor relays.

1 0

D5A3882CBDBE4CAD2F9DDA2AB80FE761BEDC3F11 is spoofing my contact info
by lists＠for-privacy.net 06 Mar '23

06 Mar '23

This is _not_ my relay: https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/D5A3882CBDBE4CAD2F9DDA2AB80F… https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetStats/w/relay/D5A3882CBDBE4CAD2F9DDA2AB80FE76… -- ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! Debian GNU/Linux It's free software and it gives you freedom!

3 2

Storing ed25519_master_id_secret_key[_encrypted] on a smartcard?
by telekobold 05 Mar '23

05 Mar '23

Dear fellow relay operators, currently, I'm operating a Tor relay (Middle/Guard) and a Tor Bridge. Offline keys [1],[2] are a good way to secure a Tor relay, but I'm wondering if there is a standard way or something like a hacking guide how to store your ed25519_master_id_secret_key[_encrypted] on a smartcard or hardware token like a Nitrokey or Yubikey? This would even be more secure than storing it on a "normal" USB device. Unfortunately I have not found much about this on the internet. Kind regards telekobold [1] https://support.torproject.org/relay-operators/offline-ed25519/ [2] https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/trac/-/wikis/doc/TorRelaySecurity/Offl…

1 1

RFC: does a private exit would work?
by Toralf Förster 05 Mar '23

05 Mar '23

tl;dr; restricted access + usage of an exit longer: An exit is sooner or later abused. A reduced exit policy does not prevent that. What about setup a tor exit relay with 'PublishServerDescriptor = 0' ? Having an access line like for bridges would restrict the access. An alternative could be a port knockig + iptables solution. Objections and comments are welcome. -- Toralf

5 5

Preferred range for ephemeral ports
by binarynoise 03 Mar '23

03 Mar '23

Hello everyone, I just set up a snowflake proxy on my pi at home. Unfortunately I can only forward 255 ports to my pi (at once, or is there a way to trick my Fritz!box into allowing more?). Which is the preferred range for -ephemeral-ports-range when it needs to be restricted to allow the most users to connect? Is 60000:60250 ok? Greetings binarynoise

2 1

removing tor versions from "recommended versions" before they reach EOL
by nusenu 01 Mar '23

01 Mar '23

Hi, the tor 0.4.5.x end of live versions are still on the recommended versions list: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#recommendedversions > consensus client-versions 0.4.5.6, 0.4.5.7, 0.4.5.8, 0.4.5.9, 0.4.5.10, 0.4.5.11, 0.4.5.12, 0.4.5.14, 0.4.5.15, 0.4.5.16, 0.4.7.7, 0.4.7.8, 0.4.7.10, 0.4.7.11, 0.4.7.12, 0.4.7.13 > server-versions 0.4.5.6, 0.4.5.7, 0.4.5.8, 0.4.5.9, 0.4.5.10, 0.4.5.11, 0.4.5.12, 0.4.5.14, 0.4.5.15, 0.4.5.16, 0.4.7.7, 0.4.7.8, 0.4.7.10, 0.4.7.11, 0.4.7.12, 0.4.7.13 it would probably be better to stop recommending tor versions a month before they reach their eol date so relay operators get to see a log entry and have some time to react. kind regards, nusenu -- https://nusenu.github.io

2 1

relay configuration not allowing optimal performance
by Relayer 26 Feb '23

26 Feb '23

I'm running a tor relay on some older hardware that I didn't want to discard when I could still put it so good use. Some details of the box are: -- CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz -- RAM: 4GB -- ARCH: x86_64 -- HDD: 250GB -- OS: Ubuntu 22.04.1 I originally configured a single Tor instance IPv4 to run as a relay only (not as an exit, nor hosting a hidden service). I am also using the iptables rules from https://github.com/Enkidu-6/tor-ddos to minimize DDOS overhead (please advise if there are alternatives or additions to this). My original config seemed ok until I started seeing my CPU and RAM maxing out consistently so I throttled back with the following in my torrc: RelayBandwidthRate 100 KB # Throttle traffic to 100KB/s (800Kbps) RelayBandwidthBurst 200 KB # But allow bursts up to 200KB/s (1600Kbps) MaxAdvertisedBandwidth 1 MB My RAM usage now is only about 50% or marginally less of my total available. Here's how the metrics look lately: https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/38939B45237BA84941C74836349C… As you can see, the throughput rated dropped in half (that's when the graph drops on 2023-02-09). However, the volume continued to decline. Additionally, I'm unclear why my Middle Probability and Consensus Weight have both dropped to near 0%. Are those, in fact, where I want them? I'm monitoring with nyx and see I get some traffic through with no apparent errors or warnings. I am NOT seeing the CPU spikes any longer but I don't think I'm giving the most with my hardware. Questions: 1.) Is my tor service now misconfigured and not utilizing my hardware as best it could? 2.) Should my Consensus Weight and/or Middle Probability be higher? 3.) Should I consider running two tor instances? Nyx log snippet: 07:59:32 [NOTICE] Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since startup: 7 circuits killed with too many cells, 591 circuits rejected, 2 marked addresses, 0 marked addresses for max queue, 0 same address concurrent │ connections rejected, 0 connections rejected, 0 single hop clients refused, 19166 INTRODUCE2 rejected. [1 duplicate hidden] │ 07:59:32 [NOTICE] Since startup we initiated 0 and received 0 v1 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v2 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v3 connections; initiated 0 and received 57982 v4 │ connections; initiated 116266 and received 356623 v5 connections. │ 07:59:32 [NOTICE] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 3/3 TAP, 44849/44849 NTor. [1 duplicate hidden] │ 07:59:32 [NOTICE] While not bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 194128391 (server descriptor fetch); 7140 (server descriptor upload); 17539422 (consensus network-status fetch); 1794 (authority cert │ fetch); 2111765 (microdescriptor fetch) │ 07:59:32 [NOTICE] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 10 days 23:58 hours, with 179 circuits open. I've sent 34.83 GB and received 35.63 GB. I've received 444762 connections on IPv4 and 0 on IPv6. I've made │ 254336 connections with IPv4 and 0 with IPv6. [1 duplicate hidden] │ 01:59:32 [NOTICE] Since startup we initiated 0 and received 0 v1 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v2 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v3 connections; initiated 0 and received 56651 v4 │ connections; initiated 114326 and received 347071 v5 connections. │ 01:59:32 [NOTICE] While not bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 189431170 (server descriptor fetch); 7140 (server descriptor upload); 17131743 (consensus network-status fetch); 1794 (authority cert │ fetch); 2068377 (microdescriptor fetch) Thanks. Relayer1974

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Frantech (was Re: Confusing bridge signs)
by Jeff Teitel 26 Feb '23

26 Feb '23

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 12:10 AM Marco wrote: > Yes, Frantech should actually be avoided. But in Miami there are few Tor > relays. A SLICE 512 for $2.00/m or $20.00/y is sufficient for a bridge. > https://buyvm.net/kvm-dedicated-server-slices/ Why should Frantech be avoided? Jeff Teitel

2 1

Questions about Tor consensus weight & swag
by shruub 20 Feb '23

20 Feb '23

Hello, so my relay regulary gets overloaded, for what I can only assume is an hardware issue, (which I can't upgrade rn) since I already applied the tor anti ddos scripts. It seems to be able to recover, however with a lower Consensus Weight. I also (stupidly) tried to have a cron restarting my tor daemon daily which also resulted in the latter. So I wonder, if there is any way to have a relay run more stable and I suppose with a somewhat higher consensus weight (I can only asssume making some further changes in advertising bandwidth etc. My second question(s) is/are concerning the tor swag (I hope that's allowed to ask here). Firstly, what is the actual Speed requirement? In the tor ecosystem, every unit is MBs, and only on the swag site its KBs. But if my calculations are correct, 500KBs = 500000Bs = 0.5MBs which doesn't really make sence, imo(but I probably misscalculated somewhere). Secondly, does running mean it's uptime (aka Last Restarted) or the Time it was first seen? Sorry for the wall of text for not much information, and thanks a lot in advance for your replies! Best, shruub

4 5

disable moderation on tor-relays again?
by nusenu 15 Feb '23

15 Feb '23

Hi, can we try to disable moderation on this list again and see how it goes? If it gets out of hand you can always move back to a moderated mode or a mode where the first email of a sender is moderated. kind regards, nusenu -- https://nusenu.github.io

4 4