Exit Balancing Patch
mikeperry at fscked.org
Wed Jul 18 09:51:32 UTC 2007
Thus spake Roger Dingledine (arma at mit.edu):
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 02:18:56AM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> > Why does it matter if routers are CPU or network bound? From the Tor
> > network routing point of view, it shouldn't matter, capacity is
> > capacity. If it is a problem for node operators, they limit their
> > bandwidth in the config, problem solved. If they don't, then they just
> > run at 100% CPU, and Tor should still properly report their observed
> > bandwidth rate (unless they lie, but again, that is a another,
> > orthogonal matter).
> Well, the problem is that Tor in fact doesn't properly report capacity at
> the extremes. Our measure of capacity is the most you've seen yourself
> burst in the past day -- it pretty much assumes that the pipe and other
> resources you have are static throughout the day.
> So if you somehow managed to push a lot briefly but you're too busy to
> handle that level of traffic sustained, then you've overadvertised.
Again, this happens both with network load and CPU load. In fact, I
think the network load capacity differences are far more extreme and
far more common. On my box, Tor uses 10% CPU, but is constantly
prioritized below regular traffic, which is bursty and very irregular.
My node is also below the 1.5Mbyte/sec barrier, so it does not help
even out this problem for me, nor most others who share Tor with
> Putting a cap on advertised bandwidth when load balancing is a crude way
> to account for this. Making our bandwidth estimate more complex may also
> work, but then we have to figure out what's better. :)
If it has to be fixed one place, it is probably best done by not
advertising burst traffic. That problem is independent of this patch,
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tor-dev