- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

"Received http status code 404 ("Consensus is too old")" keeps popping up in my logs
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

I'm just wondering if there is anything I can do to resolve this. The relay is running ntpd and consistently keeps the right time, and I'm not getting this from any other server (it's the same IP address every time). Is this of concern or should I just ignore it? Will it hinder the relay's performance when I'm getting this error? Apologies for all the questions; I'm new to the mailing list. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

2 1

DoS statistics from EA4366BCDCA6167B8CFF70E41D8CD1EE9968E445
by robink 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Running tor 0.3.3.3 Mar 15 19:00:44.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:00:48.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:01:17.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:03:01.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:03:52.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:03:52.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:01.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:01.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:08.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:09.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:10.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:10.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:16.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:16.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:35.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:35.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:49.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:05:16.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:06:05.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:06:11.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:06.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:34.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:47.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:56.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:08:04.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:08:12.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:08:12.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back upMar 15 19:09:05.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:09:15.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:10:21.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:10:59.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:11:16.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:11:42.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:12:31.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:13:03.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:13:24.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 5 days 17:59 hours, with 2819 circuits open. I've sent 621.50 GB and received 636.02 GB.Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 19393/19393 TAP, 119870/119870 NTor.Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 110064 v4 connections; and received 35 v1 connections, 187 v2 connections, 949 v3 connections, and 621316 v4 connections. Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] DoS mitigation since startup: 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses. 0 connections closed. 64 single hop clients refused.Mar 15 19:13:44.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:14:02.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:14:21.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:15:29.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:15:30.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:15:37.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:15:37.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back up Best regards, Robin

4 4

middle relay connexions dropped in half
by torix＠protonmail.com 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

Dear All, On March 5 I changed to the newest version 3.2.10 on a middle relay I run. I went away for a few days, checked today, and found that my traffic is down, and my connexions, which were around 2,000 since December, are now about 1,000. Consensus weight is still the same (about 450) as it has been before. And my throughput is down from 35G/day, hitting that max most days to about 23-26G/day. Don't know if this is because it is a better Tor and is filtering out extra crap now or not, but just thought I'd mention it, as the Tor version is the only thing that changed.\ --Torix Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

5 8

ISP Nat
by Paul Templeton 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

Hi All, I have an ISP who has started NATting inbound traffic and has screwed DNS resolution. Is there a way to bind DNS requests to use a specific IP address (Have multiple) that is not affected with this NATting problem. Paul 609662E824251C283164243846C035C803940378

3 7

Best tor version
by Даннил Николаев 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

What is best to run on relay? Version 0.2 or 0.3?

3 2

Relay node requirements
by sqrrm 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

The distributed bitcoin exchange Bisq is reliant on Tor as a communication layer and as such dependent on its stability. To support the network we're looking at incentivizing contributors to run their own Tor relay nodes. For this we need some recommendations on what setup is needed as a minimum to be actually useful for the network. I've run a relay node on a dedicated server which seems to be quite a bit of overkill, preferably it would run on as cheap a vps as possible. I've been checking on metrics.torproject.org on stats for my own node, is that the best way to monitor the nodes? If this doesn't seem worthwhile pursuing, please let me know why and I'll stop. Cheers sqrrm

3 2

Relay operators meetup @ CSOA Forte Prenestino, Rome, Italy
by Vasilis 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

Dear relay operators and *Tor people, A number of people will participate this Thursday Thursday 15/03/18, 18:30 @ CSOA Forte Prenestino in Rome, Italy [1]. Hope to see many of you there. [1] https://blog.torproject.org/events/relay-operators-meetup-csoa-forte-prenes… Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162 Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5FBF70B1D1260162

1 0

Experimental DoS mitigation is in tor master
by Roger Dingledine 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

Hi folks, Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues. We've merged https://bugs.torproject.org/24902 into tor git master. We'll be putting out an 0.3.3.2-alpha release in not too long for wider testing, and eventually backporting it all the way back to 0.2.9, but if you're the sort who enjoys running code from git, now is a great time to try it and let us know of problems and/or successes. Here's the changelog stanza: o Major features: - Give relays some defenses against the recent network overload. We start with three defenses (default parameters in parentheses). First: if a single client address makes too many connections (>100), hang up on further connections. Second: if a single client address makes circuits too quickly (more than 3 per second, with an allowed burst of 90) while also having too many connections open (3), refuse new create cells for the next while (1-2 hours). Third: if a client asks to establish a rendezvous point to you directly, ignore the request. These defenses can be manually controlled by new torrc options, but relays will also take guidance from consensus parameters, so there's no need to configure anything manually. Implements ticket 24902. To repeat that last part: there are a bunch of torrc options you can use to tweak stuff, but you can leave it all at the defaults and it will read its instructions out of the consensus parameters: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#consensusparams Woo, --Roger

12 22

2 entries in tor relay search
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

OK, thank you. Then I let it as it is. Peter The "UbuntuCoreNNN" one is "tor-middle-relay" snap. You can remove it if you are managing your own tor. Incidentally, tor-middle-relay snap is being updated right now to v0.3.1.10. You need not do anything. Updates are automatic. On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:45 PM, <peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at > wrote: > > I've installed tor and the relay via ubuntu-software. > > Did you install a Snap package of "tor-middle-relay"? > > > > On Mar 10, 2018 23:38, <peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at > wrote: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > Can anybody explain this: > > > > Peter > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tor-relays mailing list > > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > -- Chad Miller http://chad.org gpg:a806deac30420066 _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

2 entries in tor relay search
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

I've installed tor and the relay via ubuntu-software. Did you install a Snap package of "tor-middle-relay"? On Mar 10, 2018 23:38, <peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at > wrote: > > Hello! > > Can anybody explain this: > > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

2 entries in tor relay search
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

Hello! Can anybody explain this: Peter

2 1

FreeBSD 11.1 ZFS Tor Image
by Conrad Rockenhaus 10 Mar '18

10 Mar '18

Hello All, If anyone is interested, I have a RAW image of a FreeBSD 11.1 ZFS image that is fully configured and ready to run Tor. Right now it's an eight GB image, but I'm reducing the size by removing all of the extra stuff on it from the upgrade from FreeBSD 11 to 11.1. If you're interested in the image let me know. This image has been fully tested on OVH's Openstack infrastructure, so if you're interested in running it on their infrastructure, let me know and I can walk you through it, or you're more than welcome to host is within my cloud at cost (it's a low monthly rate and unlimited bandwidth). Regards, Conrad Rockenhaus

15 38

Cloud question
by Arisbe 10 Mar '18

10 Mar '18

Gentlemen / Ladies, Simple question: Do Tor middle relays and bridges work on cloud systems? Thanks for the intelligence.

2 2

DoS mitigation taking hold!
by starlight.2017q4＠binnacle.cx 07 Mar '18

07 Mar '18

Back to normal! Check out the final two log entries. Thank you David Goulet and all the Tor devs!!! Feb 24 22:45 Tor 0.3.3.2-alpha (...) running on Linux with . . . . . . Mar 2 21:09 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 247305/247482 TAP, 4620773/4622133 NTor. Mar 3 03:09 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 969715/1129528 TAP, 5195458/5196319 NTor. Mar 3 09:09 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 1847030/2202846 TAP, 5027827/5029068 NTor. Mar 3 13:24 Tor 0.3.3.3-alpha (...) running on Linux with . . . Mar 3 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 93572/93573 TAP, 5009863/5010456 NTor. Mar 4 01:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 169018/262021 TAP, 4539061/4539069 NTor. Mar 4 07:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 169753/235140 TAP, 4436073/4436112 NTor. Mar 4 13:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 119517/119547 TAP, 4040264/4041342 NTor. Mar 4 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 1098774/1119662 TAP, 4087379/4088944 NTor. Mar 5 01:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 223758/267280 TAP, 3828115/3828568 NTor. Mar 5 07:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 99975/113118 TAP, 3537541/3537974 NTor. Mar 5 13:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 173710/175951 TAP, 3792871/3793745 NTor. Mar 5 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 657254/747645 TAP, 3678773/3679332 NTor. Mar 6 01:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 606685/704653 TAP, 3186116/3186477 NTor. Mar 6 07:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 582036/708742 TAP, 2043464/2043654 NTor. Mar 6 13:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 54266/54266 TAP, *** 586327/586328 NTor. *** Mar 6 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 122817/122817 TAP, *** 558229/558231 NTor. ***

1 0

Exit Relay
by Gary 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

Hello. I have configured my relay (jaffacakemonster2) to be non exit, however arm shows me the following (I edited out IPs' & some lines after copy/paste from connection screen for others security / brevity) Connections (1878 inbound, 2113 outbound, 19 exit, 1 control) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.4m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:4000 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.4m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 1.0m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:26155 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) Atlas reports the flags Fast, Running & Valid. Lines as copied & pasted from torrc: ## Uncomment this if you do *not* want your relay to allow any exit traffic. ## (Relays allow exit traffic by default.) ExitRelay 0 What is going on here? I am confused as to why there is exit connections but I am not / dont want an exit relay. Thanks.

4 12

Shutdown relay 366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E, upcoming shutdown 328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192
by Stijn Jonker 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

Dear all, This is to announce that with immediate effect I have shutdown relay sjc02/366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E and will do so in about a year and half with sjc01/328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192 as it's a fallback directory. Thanks for all the support on the mailing list, especially with a stupid typo and the joint efforts in fighting the relay (D)DoS. The reasons why, well it's mostly based on personal assumptions, views, values and believes in terms of community/volunteer/project matters whereby quite possibly my views differ from the vast majority as such I don't believe it's appropriate to state those on a relay list. Thanks, Stijn P.S. I'll unsubscribe after this email, in case you believe a follow-up is warranted then feel free to reach out outside of the list.

1 0

CPU saturation attack/abuse
by Dhalgren Tor 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

Upgraded exit to 0.3.3.3 and now seeing a curious CPU saturation attack. Whatever the cause, result is the main event-worker thread going from a normal load level of about 30%/core to 100%/core and staying there for about 30 seconds; then CPU consumption declines back to 30%. Gradual change on ascent and decent. Another characteristic is egress traffic slightly higher than ingress traffic, perhaps 3-4%, where normally egress and ingress flows match precisly. Checked browsing via the node and performance seems fine--no obvious degradation. Elevated NTor circuit creation rates as-of the last heartbeat, from roughly 300k to 700k per-report, but not extreme (at least in a relative sense since late December). Anyone else observed this? Have any idea how the attack works? Captured a debug-level log of a cycle from normal load to full-on-attack but won't have time to analyzed it for a couple of weeks.

3 4

New releases today: please consider upgrading.
by Nick Mathewson 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

Hi! There are new security releases today. The official announcement just went to tor-announce, but I want to make sure that people on this list see it too. In brief: * Directory authorities should upgrade. * Relays running 0.3.2.1-alpha through 0.3.2.9 should upgrade. * Relays running 0.3.3.1-alpha should upgrade. * All other relays may wish to upgrade in order to improve their resistance to denial-of-service attacks. If you build Tor from source, the source code is available at https://dist.torproject.org/ . Packages should be available over the coming days. For the complete announcement, including changelogs, see https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-announce/2018-March/000152.html best wishes, -- Nick

2 1

Firewalls
by TorGate 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

Hi to all, I have a simple question, what is the best firewall solution ? With sourcecode and must be opensource. What do you mean ? regards Steffen TorGate torgate(at)linux-hus.dk OpenGPG 7FD5 65EF A4EF EEF3 7A13 4372 8409 49D6 01A2 0890

3 3

bridge behavior question
by Arisbe 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hello all, I have run a number of Tor nodes for five years but I started adding a few bridges last year. I have one bridge recently installed on a lease VPS that has not reported a single inbound connection in over 40 days (except for Bifroest hanging out). I see up to 4 outbound connections and usually see between 4 and 14 circuits. The IP tables are correct and torrc is copied from successful bridges except for IP address. The Tor version is 0.2.9.14 and the OS is debian 9.0 (stretch). I'm running obfs4proxy. I set ORPort 9001 and ORPort [IPv6]:9001. Tor | Metrics reports Advertised Bandwidth = 8.0 KiB/s for this bridge. Tor | Metrics reports Advertised Bandwidth for another working bridge I have with the same hosting company at 598.7 KiB/s. I suspect this variation is due to lack of connections by the unused bridge. I loaded a speed checker and it reported 72-Mb/s. Can anyone give me some steerage to help me get this bridge productive?

2 1

less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)
by nusenu 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hi, if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. If you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw. This affects currently the 857 fastest relays. regards, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

6 8

One pubblic IP, two or more relay on different ports
by MLTorNode 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

3 3

[WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests
by Vasilis 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hi, I see a number of warning log messages on a dedicated server: [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more restricted exit policy. [27615 similar message(s) suppressed in last 60 seconds] The relay is running on a dedicated hardware with the following specifications: CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz RAM: 6G Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-5-amd64 Tor version: 0.3.2.9 flags: Fast, Guard, HSDir, Running, Stable, V2Dir, Valid exit policy: reject *:* Setting the NumCPUs option to the actual number of CPUs (2) didn't help. Is this hardware really too old/slow to run a relay on one ethernet Gigabit link? Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162 Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5FBF70B1D1260162

2 4

Port not rechable
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

OK, but what is this: Mar 03 21:36:31.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory Mar 03 21:51:46.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory Mar 03 21:56:51.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory Tor is now online for about 36 hours, the log says 6 hours because the computer was restarted. This is the latest log: Mar 03 23:45:12.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 0%: Starting Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 80%: Connecting to the Tor network Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Signaled readiness to systemd Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Opening Socks listener on /var/run/tor/socks Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Opening Control listener on /var/run/tor/control Mar 03 23:45:25.000 [notice] Guessed our IP address as 81.10.248.112 (source: 154.35.175.225). Mar 03 23:45:25.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 85%: Finishing handshake with first hop Mar 03 23:45:26.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 90%: Establishing a Tor circuit Mar 03 23:45:27.000 [notice] Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like client functionality is working. Mar 03 23:45:27.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done Mar 03 23:45:27.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort 81.10.248.112:443 and DirPort 81.10.248.112:80 are reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) Mar 03 23:45:33.000 [notice] New control connection opened. Mar 03 23:46:49.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Mar 03 23:46:52.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Mar 03 23:47:03.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 5:59 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 8.65 MB and received 15.91 MB. Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 12.249%. TLS write overhead: 13% Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 2/2 TAP, 1107/1107 NTor. Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 454 v4 connections; and received 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 635 v4 connections. Mar 04 07:35:06.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and resetting internal state. Mar 04 07:35:06.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". How long does it last until the relay will be in use? What do the "flags" in tor-arm mean? Sometimes it says "Running, V2Dir, Valid" Yours -Peter Am 03.03.2018 um 10:31 schrieb teor: > >> On 3 Mar 2018, at 18:32, peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at wrote: >> >> Mar 03 00:05:38.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. >> Mar 03 00:05:45.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. >> Mar 03 00:09:29.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. > > It is ok. > >> … >> Mar 03 00:52:47.000 [warn] Controller gave us config lines that didn't validate: RelayBandwidthBurst must be at least equal to RelayBandwidthRate. > > You should check these options have the values you want. > > T > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

tor26 dir auth differences
by nusenu 03 Mar '18

03 Mar '18

consensus-health (https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health) wrote: > WARNING: The following authorities are missing from the consensus: tor26, dizum > NOTICE: tor26 had 6216 Guard flags in its vote but the consensus had 1855 > NOTICE: tor26 had 0 Exit flags in its vote but the consensus had 777 > NOTICE: tor26 had 7086 Stable flags in its vote but the consensus had 4541 interesting -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

1 0