tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

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

20 Sep '15

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

1 0

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

18 Sep '15

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

1 0

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

18 Sep '15

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

3 2

Tor relays without AESNI
by nobody 17 Sep '15

17 Sep '15

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

5 4

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

16 Sep '15

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

7 9

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

15 Sep '15

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

4 5

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

15 Sep '15

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '15

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '15

1 0

Middle Relay has no traffic
by Greg Moss 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

My middle relay seems to have minimal traffic. Is there something I need to do or is my damn IPS (Comcast) blocking me. Node name is gmojo02 gm

3 4

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays