On 12 Oct 2014, at 09:32 , tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org wrote:
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:25:47 +0100 From: Tor externet co uk tor@externet.co.uk To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: [tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes Message-ID: 49c1abc0aa88e1bf8425fdc8e482402d@nodataavailable.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Hi,
I've set up a bridge node in the previous few weeks, but have had to put a bandwidth limit on, as I only have 10TB of traffic per month before my ISP will start throttling me to 100k/sec.
I wondered whether it was more helpful to the Tor network as a whole to have have a very fast node which hibernated every 12-15 hours, or if I throttled Tor traffic, so that the node was more stable.
I'll confess that I'm far more au fait with the politics of Tor than I am of the exact ins and outs of how the technology works. Any help would be gratefully received.
Thanks L
For relays, where pathing is quite dynamic, we recommend speed + hibernation over uptime.
But for bridges, users obtain only 3 bridge descriptors at a time, usually via some difficult or dangerous method. We'd want to make sure at least 1 stays up at all times (2 for reliability), which would favour throttling.
teor pgp 0xABFED1AC hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 http://0bin.net/paste/Mu92kPyphK0bqmbA#Zvt3gzMrSCAwDN6GKsUk7Q8G-eG+Y+BLpe7wt...
Thanks, that's what I thought, but wasn't sure.
I'll play around for the next few days to see how fast I can get it without triggering hibernation.
L
On 2014-10-12 02:04, teor wrote:
On 12 Oct 2014, at 09:32 , tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org wrote:
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:25:47 +0100 From: Tor externet co uk tor@externet.co.uk To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: [tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes Message-ID: 49c1abc0aa88e1bf8425fdc8e482402d@nodataavailable.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Hi,
I've set up a bridge node in the previous few weeks, but have had to put a bandwidth limit on, as I only have 10TB of traffic per month before my ISP will start throttling me to 100k/sec.
I wondered whether it was more helpful to the Tor network as a whole to have have a very fast node which hibernated every 12-15 hours, or if I throttled Tor traffic, so that the node was more stable.
I'll confess that I'm far more au fait with the politics of Tor than I am of the exact ins and outs of how the technology works. Any help would be gratefully received.
Thanks L
For relays, where pathing is quite dynamic, we recommend speed + hibernation over uptime.
But for bridges, users obtain only 3 bridge descriptors at a time, usually via some difficult or dangerous method. We'd want to make sure at least 1 stays up at all times (2 for reliability), which would favour throttling.
teor pgp 0xABFED1AC hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 http://0bin.net/paste/Mu92kPyphK0bqmbA#Zvt3gzMrSCAwDN6GKsUk7Q8G-eG+Y+BLpe7wt...
On 12 Oct 2014, at 19:30 , Tor externet co uk tor@externet.co.uk wrote:
On 2014-10-12 02:04, teor wrote:
On 12 Oct 2014, at 09:32 , tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org wrote:
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:25:47 +0100 From: Tor externet co uk tor@externet.co.uk To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: [tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes Message-ID: 49c1abc0aa88e1bf8425fdc8e482402d@nodataavailable.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Hi, I've set up a bridge node in the previous few weeks, but have had to put a bandwidth limit on, as I only have 10TB of traffic per month before my ISP will start throttling me to 100k/sec. I wondered whether it was more helpful to the Tor network as a whole to have have a very fast node which hibernated every 12-15 hours, or if I throttled Tor traffic, so that the node was more stable. I'll confess that I'm far more au fait with the politics of Tor than I am of the exact ins and outs of how the technology works. Any help would be gratefully received. Thanks L
For relays, where pathing is quite dynamic, we recommend speed + hibernation over uptime. But for bridges, users obtain only 3 bridge descriptors at a time, usually via some difficult or dangerous method. We'd want to make sure at least 1 stays up at all times (2 for reliability), which would favour throttling. teor
Thanks, that's what I thought, but wasn't sure.
I'll play around for the next few days to see how fast I can get it without triggering hibernation.
L
A little hibernation isn't that bad - going down for half an hour every few days isn't as much of an issue for reliability as 18 hours every day.
(Fixed mixed top- and bottom-posting.)
teor pgp 0xABFED1AC hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 http://0bin.net/paste/Mu92kPyphK0bqmbA#Zvt3gzMrSCAwDN6GKsUk7Q8G-eG+Y+BLpe7wt...
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
teor -
Tor externet co uk