- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

unbound bogs down strangely, degrading exit relay
by Dhalgren Tor 19 Mar '16

19 Mar '16

Hit a repeat of an earlier incident: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-January/008621.html message from tor daemon is Resolved [scrubbed] which was already resolved; ignoring About 5400 of these messages over 37 hours, during which the relay dropped down to 30% of usual load and did not work for Tor Browser when the exit was specifically set. Unlike the earlier incident, DNSSEC was disabled. Probably the IP address for root-server H was incorrect because it changed in December and 'unbound' was built in September. Just installed and configured the current 'named.root' hints file. Both "iterator" and "validator" modules were loaded, though validation was disabled. Changed the config to load only "iterator". Unbound 1.5.4, tor 0.2.6.10. Running 164 days. If I see this again I'm planning to attempt purging the 'unbound' request queue with unbound-control dump_requestlist >reqlist.snap unbound-control flush_requestlist and if that doesn't work, bouncing 'unbound' without stopping the 'tor' daemon. Interesting stats were recorded, starting with the good pre-incident entries: Mar 11 05:53 notice: sendto failed: Invalid argument notice: remote address is 0.0.0.1 port 53 ...repeated 4 times Mar 15 17:45 server stats for thread: 1029423 queries, 415824 answers from cache, 613599 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 132 avg 22.5692 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 4.070100 sec Mar 16 05:46 Resolved [scrubbed] which was already resolved; ignoring Mar 16 17:45 server stats for thread: 1162172 queries, 287662 answers from cache, 874510 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 421 avg 198.684 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 25.833646 sec Mar 16 21:08 notice: sendto failed: Invalid argument notice: remote address is 0.0.0.1 port 53 ...repeated 4 times Mar 17 16:52 notice: sendto failed: Invalid argument notice: remote address is 0.0.0.1 port 53 ...repeated 4 times Mar 17 17:45 server stats for thread: 1078496 queries, 144557 answers from cache, 933939 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 459 avg 296.668 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 40.621863 sec service stopped (unbound 1.5.4). Mar 17 19:28 server stats for thread: 53991 queries, 3455 answers from cache, 50536 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 342 avg 290.977 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 35.947563 sec If anyone has seen this or knows anything please comment. Tried searching but came up with nothing but thread referenced above.

2 5

Re: [tor-relays] Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:29:58 +0000, you wrote: > > Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tor-relays-owner(a)lists.torproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net) > 2. Re: Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (Daryl Styrk) > 3. Re: Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (s7r) > 4. Re: Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (Sebastian Niehaus) > 5. Re: Running 5000 relays... (Brian 'redbeard' Harrington) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:45:06 +0200 > From: s7r <s7r(a)sky-ip.org> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically > Message-ID: <56E6F8A2.5030903(a)sky-ip.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hello, > > Your relay seams fine on atlas: > > http://atlas777hhh7mcs7.onion/#details/A290A9E71ADFC2FB1C80E64EF851A4B90545… > > > It has an observed bandwidth of 582.23 KB/s > Advertised bandwidth of 512 KB/s > and burst 716.8 KB/s > > Which is exactly as per your configuration. > > The consensus weight is 613, which is totally normal for this value of > observed bandwidth. > > Tip: if you are on a limited bandwidth plan, better set AccountingMax > and do not cap the speed via RelayBandwidthRate / RelayBandwidthBurst. > Instead let it run at its maximum speed for less than an entire month > rather than capping it to few KB/s to ensure maximum n GB/TB are > consumed within a month. > In a previous post someone recommended that I try to reduce my bandwidth to allow my relay to stay active 24/7 x 31 days. This is why I removed the AccountingMax setting and reduced my RelayBandwidthRate to 500kb/s and RelayBandwidthBurst to 700kb/s. What concerns me is that while running arm in graph mode, I rarely see the bandwidth rate steadily flow around 500kb/s. With a 3tb bandwidth limit per month, following your recommendations, would you recommend that my AccountingMax be set to 55gb per day up and down and turn off RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst? This will probably mean that the bandwidth will be used up within the first 10-12 hours of each day and my relay will be in hibernation for the remaining portion of that 24 hours. This hibernation period appears to affect the uptime statistics, which means my middle consensus numbers will drop as a consequence. I'm trying to figure out what's the secret sauce here to keep the relay running 24/7 and stay within my 3tb bandwidth limitation. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW5yi+AAoJEH1gNwhiMDZubTgQAJuj6EdfLZsyPsLxfeiLA2nh w52jJLO3yXg+InJ4IzoSaHzbXsqdUuSmj7RxOsgTr9K1xflX3XkdNmlWYkhs005F JNMGyglnOb3LlSbJ9fxspZH1KOhwJwy9ZJrHGRqVRXrAC7VBMpJ016TEcFNL3daL J98LhZuyN5Iecm0k9LhuxoZ0YfnCc03qpkUJDMiM0khsXfoesFWd+Zdss/Igj2aC mVcE+BMKvO8gHATdVytvHvqqZ07unIAV6mRkw/c/NBqRh07xX6qEJwoDANCEvfS6 7NGQZpgEVWw2lT2GPj5T4WGmEPN6CAfCJTE7fJG1IA1j4iLNgHwRM7kKxQpFWpVa CAwE8wgc9BxFYCVg8Kzjr/PDJO7mNLFRH3yXXJ9dTo6qS+GRxdZEYTH6FaNc9ERP W9/hnv18bo0IuQ+o8+sMtzDbAbyyPXDeSbx2qHOzxuTJkzLPkq2t8W2HX5kiurZ8 MIkdkJH+bc71EwV1YBzb/Ca4/kdqTRqEMJzXFtn8wq6fa1uRxDC1S7Su374y4fTy C1OmTfURhKhK39yVFVJrKqINsgE1GQnKikE2DCMlbrp+IFaItrDOg+gx81mO7WkK /KbpxnKJotLxIxBX12j0T6CYyGKQio6SSTbI0iObsXJNpEkQCX+jPp3GDDcWPzlK p/XtNor8MXQS1u96hpwP =z+T6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have been watching my middle relay for the past four days and I can't figure out why my bandwidth has gone to hell. I have RelayBandwidthRate at 500 KB and RelayBandwidthBurst at 700 KB, but my bandwidth has fallen almost down to zero. I have removed the AccountingMax setting so it should be available for service, but it appears to be sitting idle. fingerprint is 'stealth A290A9E71ADFC2FB1C80E64EF851A4B905450105' Tor Version 0.2.7.6 Debian 7.0 1 Meg of Memory on VPS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW5t3wAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuSasQAKQ0PQrNqqVl2x0nhKUPvZTz xCffMMmDeE+xU3QvMhGDxuliIJVgxuP0jqtXzZ6Vrxr9QQ4f7XwuK057O8PD9nnq B5UsYXjoV/2VsDgv0n+mOv3LmQB2CJv/GJzSnl4/ZYaW8k76P0FavS6HHpZKnM6T g5ybxnscpiSbP6GO1ZuK3cRxDfTFtoh80HsShgDG7VAOHPzyFNz4diKQJ3J5LQe5 1QDvFB6l4VUZTCN9++2NvwLkvIGS9xMeX4TOOVwwV9lZDmU+aE0zH3EkIJrnhjv4 tToyypxCCTLkgTN6BkFTF7Ug07H4oqs0J09SWkLT6XUsvm+QSf7dL2Nzujp1KkYl yuZLqkpxgtgUPde3Ejcdgzy9Zv3y+j89f+JavAWy5VAQ5779V8nKonYclINROpcX 2PlOuE4GvrOrurUQzQJJfvSkWEF3NNJjvrAZGyM6X79v/F6/zod1QV5a0/ASUY5g vNUbLQfjGHExf86UZRak1un1x4/yzESnddZPHWALcNR/JHQHgra7+283RHqVNxeX 7zggM+HNxIxKYngC4B4V+9hZnuXE8Ty2444ykXNrZibQSDiFf5RIBBffmbRtJxzJ K/Jrdw9VyajNPx4AnV+gnh611+bgNw9Rpo1WKHd0KOdeLhKUC8js1ZvZpiPpqojR CPkUwxBAh8Ydt4HEp3Mw =jZnl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 62, Issue 13
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:16:18 +0000, you wrote: > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:08:31 +1100 > From: Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345(a)gmail.com> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Hibernation Expectations > Message-ID: <6449D528-F52E-49E6-8331-0F3276365348(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On 9 Mar 2016, at 05:29, stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net wrote: > > > > Signed PGP part > > I am allocating 100gb of bandwidth up and down every day. When my > > middle relay goes into hibernation, should I expect my stats to go > > to hell? Should I also expect my flags my stable and guard flags to > > be removed? > > Yes, but they'll come back eventually. > > > > > If I reach my bandwidth restrictions 10 hours before it is reset, > > is this the reason why the relay would lose guard and stable flags? > > I may need to restrict my bandwidth to 60gb up and down as I only > > have 3tb of bandwidth to donate on a monthly basis. > > This is another question we see frequently. > Until we get a FAQ or wiki entry for it, I'd encourage you to search the list archives for previous answers. > > There are good reasons to run a relay that's always on. > Then again, there are also good reasons to run a fast relay. > If you're very close to your bandwidth cutoff, why not decrease it slightly, and run all the time? > > Tim I have changed my AccountingMax to 60gb and my RelayBandwidthRate to 5mb and my RelayBandwidthBurst to 10mb. I will monitor these settings for the next couple of days to see, if I reach my AccountingMax number. If I do reach the AccountingMax number then I will reduce the RelayBandwidthRate and RelaybandwidthBurst down until my server can run 24/7. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW4G4MAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZu8bsP/3j4GYhUKZMZbnm2+i+7XJ5C vGWxQgHC/7bMe5zuQY7CjHuPZRjqNImbQTy8FPLb1NGKuutVS1RcQafDvTVBUJiL a64dTCAAbf12AScSxCzhqgBpWQ1nW2mKRPTeGUOrkeCPgx3o/Cqby5U3fL0Hcy3R lhrTWOlca3waJDnpNzlslMgXVLhoR+cspflKoi+NzFoanHDveipkcZEr65cIBoWJ QlYcfH0CE1070W68DatwtNzyQW7Mm9bMULX8aWJQpjMIvd/GKZ6OGGysXjgLDbDN x2b7/VcHuxNXaVJSbhdenoA2GoF1h02Sl9K1QUMVo46LqVfsJiZduSmvB4EJz9VA KsMmTc3C51Mp3EgdH538gP9lfNA/PhT/1KrHFz9ILnC0sy9E8zxHzpk9+Lt7652/ PTaeVE0+1epAVG3namxaMLiK36gOUD4xuGi3UP18U2s7UzlaesEusSie6j+wHZid /D3pQTE50Mj7eb4yxLziBU/DS3UB4FwhRphCKqnB/ZdJWbMZ88hAfwfcgxmTjvB0 7fZ6wtZDsdAqWPOTzRlkEVifS1ZcS0WgT2FGSmzBbUH7/hT9YTuKdHelUNrYBJy+ 3b5A+6/kMCBUV0bJjiUirINATG0XJDGoYmSjFm/Z7ac/vfOh+TXzTwiG+yITJ1cA FuaKL42rov2Ier2nWnYu =BnNF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Hibernation Expectations
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am allocating 100gb of bandwidth up and down every day. When my middle relay goes into hibernation, should I expect my stats to go to hell? Should I also expect my flags my stable and guard flags to be removed? If I reach my bandwidth restrictions 10 hours before it is reset, is this the reason why the relay would lose guard and stable flags? I may need to restrict my bandwidth to 60gb up and down as I only have 3tb of bandwidth to donate on a monthly basis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW3w91AAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuPo0P/2jKTt3DAX6pFIU70nTl55IE RxgP45KZnv7RmqLPN5T4UAKl7BmuhWLDY7uIRzfoagersXNXbWrcvRZrpGR8Eycf OS4jNjw0WPX3AgzmU0XeIkPypu2vJ1Qdz3dfRsNiguwUPwPHvGE9d6yKp/3DztYs rtBcWQ0yiCn3vDLgEHSjyUop35lJla9Rg1l7DWgfJEKc+6zqOMsLod5Ie0ZVETOY b8gmP0Ct9Bqyzj9zHlXbEgk0M9t7f2g/cOkX1G3ABBQVMe83rcssNPodDy8xFpYm AA0K6LmUzz94kxhmu/wzph48PRsm5cdr4mAXbDkKkVlQxszHCGZqbMR2Zdff6txh GGSb8AdXX7eTzsIAJ8eDN2ZsWsneuKiofvXY2oSyuOpgl+jeHxivXJoYunXvEQER rikVhoZkn0X4hotNzIAWdEQgifmfxhGXuphytHNphCFkCY5I6UY+HNLjcZTl+9OH vytFYvpy/zc5zEjHhrM6FWxXYSgBCL34jo0L9Hr6dqDYD4pPBf/Td2CiBXdNEliK tD+JYlH9gFQ/TmNePef9za1vWF0t+8QlpsZYqTZ3xuHYN24Znjdnklr+nbIlrUTp 9tpibQ4MisX781wadp0OCqePmxZjyiwnZEHxHNlW6KcrvP37kXTmIFdybUZV6eYx equ2uTmOQ9EzuJidfxO4 =zOMH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Ticket #18489
by Felix 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

Hi I stumbled over [1]. As I operate Doedel26 I checked DownloadExtraInfo was default. After change in torrc to 1 and reload 'cached-extrainfo' showed up in /var/db/tor/. Can someone please advice how to deal with it ? Best regards, Felix [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18489

3 2

relay maintenance without losing consensus weight?
by Zwiebel 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

Hello, is there a way to shut down Tor relays for a short time without losing consensus weight or bandwidth? Last week I installed a newer Tor version and added more RAM and now my relays lost a third of their bandwidth. Last time I've upgraded the hardware was in January and the relays didn't fully recover from the downtime in the last two months. I'd gladly provide 200Mb/s+ of relay bandwidth if I could, but Tor won't let me. - Zwiebel

5 6

Northeastern University Relays
by nusenu 08 Mar '16

08 Mar '16

Thanks for adding relays! Maybe set a contactinfo? (Whenever a university adds an unusual amount of relays it reminds me of the CMU case though.) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.onion-routing.ornetradar/1030 (I'm not implying they are doing anything bad)

2 2

misconfig resolution for Tor startup on linux?
by torserver＠datakanja.de 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Last week, i had been erroneously assuming, the daily reassigned external IP addresses from my provider would kill Tor, as someone suggested in the IRC. So i ran a quick "sudo update-rc.d tor disable". Only later, when i learned, the IP change doesnt cause too much trouble, i reenabled Tor. Since then, the tor service doesnt come up on computer startup any longer. I tried all kind of things, like: sudo update-rc.d tor enable sudo update-rc.d tor defaults i even reinstalled Tor completely, but the service does not start automatically any longer. After finding this to be true, i began to start it manually after each reboot like so: sudo service tor start # this does in fact cause the service to run as debian-tor user, as it should! Unfortunately, it is necessary to reboot from time to time, to prevent acceleration in memory fragmentation caused by several programs i use on a daily basis. If not prevented, the latter causes system instabilities and introduces severe risk of data corruption. So back to the basics: i am just a simple Ubuntu user with a machine, that is connected and running basically 24/7 (except for the daily disconnect, as can be seen from the logs). And i would certainly appreciate any suggestion to check for, why upstart doesnt pick up Tor, as it should. From my own understanding, eveything looks pretty normal, like: find /etc -name ?20tor | xargs ls -l lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc0.d/K20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc1.d/K20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc2.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc3.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc4.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc5.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc6.d/K20tor -> ../init.d/tor Sorry for asking such an unadorned question here, i simply ran out of ideas. :-( NewTorKidOnTheBlock

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Guard Status vs Middle
by starlight.2016q1＠binnacle.cx 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

>If your relay has been given guard status does this mean that >one's middle status is put on hold or can a relay be in guard >and middle status at the same time? Guard-flagged relays are both middle and guard nodes. Take a look at the relay in https://atlas.torproject.org/ and https://globe.torproject.org/ to see graph-lines of the probabalities

1 0