Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay
My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: Atlas "advertised" (which is actually supposed to be "measured"?: 100 KB/s = ~ 800,000 bit/s "I have sent" reported in Tor log: on the average pretty stable 17 mbytes every 6 hours = ~ 200 bit/s Atlas graphs: 1 Kbytes/s on the average ~ 8,000 bit/s Consensus BW: 26 = ~ 26,000 bit/s Average upload bw reported by arm: 100 kb/s = ~ 100,000 bit/s Makes zero sense.
On 10 Dec. 2016, at 07:12, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are:
Atlas “advertised” (which is actually supposed to be “measured”?: 100 KB/s = ~ 800,000 bit/s
This is the minimum of: * the bandwidth rate, * the bandwidth burst, and * the observed bandwidth (the maximum bandwidth your relay has recently sustained over a 10 second period). * the consensus weight, converted to a bandwidth figure (I think?). If you hover over the figure in atlas, it will break it down for you.
“I have sent” reported in Tor log: on the average pretty stable 17 mbytes every 6 hours = ~ 200 bit/s
This is what your relay has actually sent.
Atlas graphs: 1 Kbytes/s on the average ~ 8,000 bit/s
This is the value that your relay reports it has sent. It is rounded and averaged to preserve client privacy.
Consensus BW: 26 = ~ 26,000 bit/s
This is the low-median of the measurements of the 5 bandwidth authorities. It is a dimensionless figure that only makes sense when compared with other relay consensus weights. (It is not measured in kilobytes per second, although since the input values are kilobytes per second, it can sometimes be comparable.)
Average upload bw reported by arm: 100 kb/s = ~ 100,000 bit/s
I suspect this is actually kilobytes, and is the same as the atlas figure. (They use the same backend library.)
Makes zero sense.
Yes, it can be very confusing. Each of these figures measures a different thing. They are made for different purposes. Other than that, I'll repeat what I said the last time you asked this question, in: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-December/011111.html
I don't know your relay's fingerprint, so I can only repeat the general advice I have given others with similar questions:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010913.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010928.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010916.html
T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10 Dec. 2016, at 07:12, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: Atlas “advertised” (which is actually supposed to be “measured”?: 100 KB/s = ~ 800,000 bit/s
This is the minimum of: * the bandwidth rate, * the bandwidth burst, and * the observed bandwidth (the maximum bandwidth your relay has recently sustained over a 10 second period). * the consensus weight, converted to a bandwidth figure (I think?).
If you hover over the figure in atlas, it will break it down for you.
Thanks for the tip. It says it is the actually measured bandwidth
“I have sent” reported in Tor log: on the average pretty stable 17 mbytes every 6 hours = ~ 200 bit/s
This is what your relay has actually sent.
Totally inconsistent with the rest
Atlas graphs: 1 Kbytes/s on the average ~ 8,000 bit/s
This is the value that your relay reports it has sent. It is rounded and averaged to preserve client privacy.
This is not consistent with the 200 bit/s figure. Do you mean to say that Atlas rounds 200 bps on the average to 8000 bps on the average?
Consensus BW: 26 = ~ 26,000 bit/s
This is the low-median of the measurements of the 5 bandwidth authorities. It is a dimensionless figure that only makes sense when compared with other relay consensus weights.
Can't comment because I have no idea what the formula is, therefore this figure is meaningless to me.
Average upload bw reported by arm: 100 kb/s = ~ 100,000 bit/s
I suspect this is actually kilobytes, and is the same as the atlas figure. (They use the same backend library.)
This would not be consistent at all with actual reported upload of 17 mbytes in 6 hours which as I said is pretty constant. The ~100 Kb/s average bit rate figure reported by arm lingers for HOURS. This rate,s 17 MB would have been sent in THREE MINUTES. If the rate were 100 kbyte/s as you suggest then it would take the relay 22 SECONDS to send what it claims it is sending in 6 hours.
Makes zero sense.
Still doesn't. Why do Tor and Tor-related projects such as arm publish all these TOTALLY inconsiostent figures? If they want to confuse the adversaries I doubt that it worked, but they sure as hell were highly successful in confusing me :)
On 12 Dec. 2016, at 00:08, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Dec. 2016, at 07:12, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: Atlas “advertised” (which is actually supposed to be “measured”?: 100 KB/s = ~ 800,000 bit/s
This is the minimum of: * the bandwidth rate, * the bandwidth burst, and * the observed bandwidth (the maximum bandwidth your relay has recently sustained over a 10 second period). * the consensus weight, converted to a bandwidth figure (I think?).
If you hover over the figure in atlas, it will break it down for you.
Thanks for the tip. It says it is the actually measured bandwidth
This is the "Advertised Bandwidth". It is the minimum of 3 (or 4) different bandwidths your relay advertises it can handle. Some of these are measured at your relay as a 10-second sustained maximum. Others are taken from the configuration.
“I have sent” reported in Tor log: on the average pretty stable 17 mbytes every 6 hours = ~ 200 bit/s
This is what your relay has actually sent.
Totally inconsistent with the rest
Atlas graphs: 1 Kbytes/s on the average ~ 8,000 bit/s
This is the value that your relay reports it has sent. It is rounded and averaged to preserve client privacy.
This is not consistent with the 200 bit/s figure. Do you mean to say that Atlas rounds 200 bps on the average to 8000 bps on the average?
This is the "Bandwidth History". These are measured at your relay over 10-second periods, then averaged over a few hours, then rounded to the nearest kilobyte. Since a relay's reported bandwidth history is rounded to kilobytes per second, you will only see figures in multiples of 8192 bps.
Consensus BW: 26 = ~ 26,000 bit/s
This is the low-median of the measurements of the 5 bandwidth authorities. It is a dimensionless figure that only makes sense when compared with other relay consensus weights.
Can't comment because I have no idea what the formula is, therefore this figure is meaningless to me.
This is the "Consensus Weight", based on the measured bandwidth. Your relay is measured at random times and in random pairings with other relays, from 5 different tor clients around the US and western Europe. Then these measurements are averaged, scaled according to the ratio between your relay's reported bandwidth and measured bandwidth, and then the low-median (3rd highest out of 5) is used as the measurement. If that doesn't make sense, don't worry about the details.
Average upload bw reported by arm: 100 kb/s = ~ 100,000 bit/s
I suspect this is actually kilobytes, and is the same as the atlas figure. (They use the same backend library.)
This would not be consistent at all with actual reported upload of 17 mbytes in 6 hours which as I said is pretty constant. The ~100 Kb/s average bit rate figure reported by arm lingers for HOURS. This rate,s 17 MB would have been sent in THREE MINUTES. If the rate were 100 kbyte/s as you suggest then it would take the relay 22 SECONDS to send what it claims it is sending in 6 hours.
This is the "Advertised Bandwidth". It is the same one displayed by Atlas. But it should probably have a capital "B" in "Bps".
Makes zero sense.
Still doesn't. Why do Tor and Tor-related projects such as arm publish all these TOTALLY inconsiostent figures? If they want to confuse the adversaries I doubt that it worked, but they sure as hell were highly successful in confusing me :)
It seems to me that you want everything containing the word "bandwidth" to have the same value. But they are measured over different times and at different places, so they are never going to be the same. Have you tried checking the bandwidth of your connection to servers located in 5 different countries? I bet you get 5 different answers. T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ] The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm actually means Kbytes/sec and not kbits/sec when it writes Kb/s I have arm reporting average of at least several tens of Kb/s all the time, and about 100 Kb/s most of the time, and then I wind up with almost constant 200 bit/sec actual average rate over 6 hours, based on the total number of Mbytes sent that Tor reports in its log file. Even if the 200 bit/sec figure is somehow rounded to 8000 bit/ sec or even 8000 bytes/sec as you suggested , this does not make sense... Rana
On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ]
The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm actually means Kbytes/sec and not kbits/sec when it writes Kb/s
I have arm reporting average of at least several tens of Kb/s all the time, and about 100 Kb/s most of the time, and then I wind up with almost constant 200 bit/sec actual average rate over 6 hours, based on the total number of Mbytes sent that Tor reports in its log file.
Even if the 200 bit/sec figure is somehow rounded to 8000 bit/ sec or even 8000 bytes/sec as you suggested , this does not make sense…
Ok, so you didn't say that to start with, you seemed to be saying that it was constantly showing 100 kb/s. Perhaps arm is displaying your maximum bandwidth over a certain time? (I really don't now what bandwidth arm measures.) T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ]
The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm actually means Kbytes/sec and not kbits/sec when it writes Kb/s
I have arm reporting average of at least several tens of Kb/s all the time, and about 100 Kb/s most of the time, and then I wind up with almost constant 200 bit/sec actual average rate over 6 hours, based on the total number of Mbytes sent that Tor reports in its log file.
Even if the 200 bit/sec figure is somehow rounded to 8000 bit/ sec or even 8000 bytes/sec as you suggested , this does not make sense…
Ok, so you didn't say that to start with, you seemed to be saying that it was constantly showing 100 kb/s. Perhaps arm is displaying your maximum bandwidth over a certain time? (I really don't now what bandwidth arm measures.) T -------------------------------- I do not have a slightest freaking idea and this arm thing seems to have been written by anarchists who thought that documentation was too bourgeois Rana
On 12 Dec. 2016, at 08:43, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ]
The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm actually means Kbytes/sec and not kbits/sec when it writes Kb/s
I have arm reporting average of at least several tens of Kb/s all the time, and about 100 Kb/s most of the time, and then I wind up with almost constant 200 bit/sec actual average rate over 6 hours, based on the total number of Mbytes sent that Tor reports in its log file.
Even if the 200 bit/sec figure is somehow rounded to 8000 bit/ sec or even 8000 bytes/sec as you suggested , this does not make sense…
Ok, so you didn't say that to start with, you seemed to be saying that it was constantly showing 100 kb/s.
Perhaps arm is displaying your maximum bandwidth over a certain time? (I really don't now what bandwidth arm measures.)
I do not have a slightest freaking idea and this arm thing seems to have been written by anarchists who thought that documentation was too bourgeois
Maybe you think this is clever snark. But some people might not want to help you if you talk like that. There is extensive documentation for arm and stem (the backend library used by arm). It's some of the best documentation I've seen. Here is the documentation for arm: https://www.atagar.com/arm/ Here is the documentation for stem: https://stem.torproject.org/index.html In particular: https://stem.torproject.org/api/descriptor/server_descriptor.html • average_bandwidth (int) -- * average rate it's willing to relay in bytes/s • burst_bandwidth (int) -- * burst rate it's willing to relay in bytes/s • observed_bandwidth (int) -- * estimated capacity based on usage in bytes/s And: https://stem.torproject.org/api/descriptor/extrainfo_descriptor.html • read_history_end (datetime) -- end of the sampling interval • read_history_interval (int) -- seconds per interval • read_history_values (list) -- bytes read during each interval • write_history_end (datetime) -- end of the sampling interval • write_history_interval (int) -- seconds per interval • write_history_values (list) -- bytes written during each interval T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/11/2016 1:43 PM, Rana wrote:
On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ]
The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm actually means Kbytes/sec and not kbits/sec when it writes Kb/s
I have arm reporting average of at least several tens of Kb/s all the time, and about 100 Kb/s most of the time, and then I wind up with almost constant 200 bit/sec actual average rate over 6 hours, based on the total number of Mbytes sent that Tor reports in its log file.
Even if the 200 bit/sec figure is somehow rounded to 8000 bit/ sec or even 8000 bytes/sec as you suggested , this does not make sense…
Ok, so you didn't say that to start with, you seemed to be saying that it was constantly showing 100 kb/s.
Perhaps arm is displaying your maximum bandwidth over a certain time? (I really don't now what bandwidth arm measures.)
T -------------------------------- I do not have a slightest freaking idea and this arm thing seems to have been written by anarchists who thought that documentation was too bourgeois
Rana
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
When I first began running Tor relays I felt a dependency regarding arm and it's output as well. However, over the years I weened myself off arm and just let the relay run without constant worries. I believe this is the feeling of most operators. When I feel the need I run nload and Vnstat is handy for analysis. Command line lsof and many others do a good job as well. Again, just offering my 2 cents worth....no attack intended..
participants (3)
-
Kurt Besig -
Rana -
teor