Mystery of bridge utilization
I've got 2 bridges, with 1 IP address in each of 2 servers in the same geographical area. The IP addresses are not consecutive. Both servers have the same hardware and software configurations. Both were established in mid-January and (excepting a few brief periods of down time) have been running since then. So why then in March did one server handle 200GB of traffic while the other handled only 2GB? (Yes, a x100 difference.) Also: is there something I can do to make my under-utilized bridge more attractive to the Bridge Authorities? Thanks.
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Steve Snyder <swsnyder@snydernet.net> wrote:
I've got 2 bridges, with 1 IP address in each of 2 servers in the same geographical area. The IP addresses are not consecutive.
Both servers have the same hardware and software configurations. Both were established in mid-January and (excepting a few brief periods of down time) have been running since then.
So why then in March did one server handle 200GB of traffic while the other handled only 2GB? (Yes, a x100 difference.)
Sounds like one bridge ended up in the https or email pool (meaning we give the bridge address out via bridges.torproject.org or bridges@torproject.org), while the other ended up in a more private pool.
Also: is there something I can do to make my under-utilized bridge more attractive to the Bridge Authorities?
You could set it up as a relay instead? -- Runa A. Sandvik
More private pool? Meaning which pool exactly? (I'm expecting something in the lines of "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you") On Apr 2, 2012 10:31 AM, "Runa A. Sandvik" <runa.sandvik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Steve Snyder <swsnyder@snydernet.net> wrote:
I've got 2 bridges, with 1 IP address in each of 2 servers in the same geographical area. The IP addresses are not consecutive.
Both servers have the same hardware and software configurations. Both were established in mid-January and (excepting a few brief periods of down time) have been running since then.
So why then in March did one server handle 200GB of traffic while the other handled only 2GB? (Yes, a x100 difference.)
Sounds like one bridge ended up in the https or email pool (meaning we give the bridge address out via bridges.torproject.org or bridges@torproject.org), while the other ended up in a more private pool.
Also: is there something I can do to make my under-utilized bridge more attractive to the Bridge Authorities?
You could set it up as a relay instead?
-- Runa A. Sandvik _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Konstantinos Asimakis <inshame@gmail.com> wrote:
More private pool? Meaning which pool exactly?
(I'm expecting something in the lines of "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you")
"More private" as in "bridges not distributed via email or web, but to contacts, via social media sites etc". -- Runa A. Sandvik
participants (3)
-
Konstantinos Asimakis -
Runa A. Sandvik -
Steve Snyder