Proposal: Speed up Tor
keybounce at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 19:47:08 UTC 2007
I would like to know what is the next step to take to make this
happen. According to the tor design document I read, the procedure for
making changes to Tor is to first write up a proposal, then have it
discussed on the developer list, and then when it's well-understood,
code it. Yet there's no discussion, no feedback. What should I do
On 6/1/07, Michael_google gmail_Gersten <keybounce at gmail.com> wrote:
> Proposal for Tor.
> The goal of this proposal is to support the following goals:
> 1. An easy way to toggle between "At least speed X" (for
> single-threaded web browsing) and "Any speed, many connections" (for
> 2. A way to keep nodes from being CPU starved from the encryption
> processing (high bandwidth nodes)
> 3. A way to keep nodes from being bandwidth starved (the main limit on
> middle-speed nodes).
> Motivation: Speed up Tor.
> 1. Add in a control message for switching torrc's. Add support in
> Vidiallia to toggle these.
> Flaw: Ideally the determination (high speed vs. high numbers) would
> be made based on who is making the request. For example, while the
> downloader is fetching 10 slow parts at once, I still want to browse.
> 2. If the protocol for extending a circuit to a new node does not
> permit the new node to reject the connection, then add this ability.
> Otherwise, start using it. Nodes can prevent being CPU starved by
> refusing new connections when they are "full".
> 3. When a circuit is being built, estimates of bandwidth needed are
> transmitted as well. Similar to #2, nodes will reject new connections
> if the bandwidth isn't there.
> Security implications: Absolutely no idea. How does having large
> numbers of connections affect Tor's tracability?
> Specification (incomplete):
> 1. New control message would either take a filename of the new torrc,
> or the contents of the new torrc. I do not know Tor's inner workings,
> and cannot tell which is "better".
> 2. Nodes can measure the CPU cost per circuit, and tell how many they
> can afford CPU wise. There may be a configuration parameter to
> indicate how much CPU it can use; maybe the output of "uptime" is read
> to see what the CPU levels are (and Tor stops accepting when the load
> is .8 or higher.)
> 3. The simplest way to handle this is to put numbers in the config
> file, and pass them along. For example, if I'm in "single threaded
> browsing", I'll have numbers specifying a max speed of 150 KB/s, a
> burst speed of 100 KB/s, and an average speed of 10 KB/s. If I'm in
> "multi-threaded download", I'll specify a max speed of 25 KB, an
> average speed of 15 KB, and a burst speed of 18 KB.
> What to do with these numbers? Well, if the sum of the averages of all
> incoming circuits exceed my actual bandwidth, I say "No" when someone
> tries to connect. Similarly, if I cannot support the burst speed, I
> saw "No", to avoid slowing them down (this becomes the minimum speed
> needed). Finally, I know that the worst case for this circuit is the
> max speed, and I can do ... ? with it.
> The idea here: On my DSL, I cannot get more than 150 KB/s. While I
> want to get that full speed, I'll be happy to get 100 KB/s. On
> average, while I'm surfing, I'm not fetching pages all the time --
> hence, an average speed of 10 KB/s representing fetch, read, fetch,
> read, fetch, read.
> Now, it's not perfect. I'm thinking that "Busy percentage" might make
> more sense -- 10% busy for web surfing, 95% busy for downloaders. This
> would also help CPU overhead calculations. It also helps tell when to
> say "This circuit has been idle for a while. It isn't active at all,
> and while it is inactive, we will regard it as having a speed demand
> of 0". This will prevent a node from being filled up with "idle"
> connections, and becoming wasted.
> I'm also realizing that my concept of "burst" isn't quite right, and
> I'm hoping that someone else has a better idea. For downloading,
> "burst" means that while the average demand for a 10 part download is
> 15 KB/s per circuit, there will be variance, and a node might see a
> higher burst. Yet I will be happy even if a node can only give me 10
> KB/s, because I have 9 other circuits that will each get slightly more
> speed. So I think we need "This is my minimum acceptable speed, reject
> this circuit if you can't give me this much", "This is my average",
> and "This is my worst case / initial burst" (a lot of circuits will be
> busy at first, and idle afterwards), as well as "percentage of time I
> expect the circuit to be used".
> Compatibility: The only change in how nodes talk to each other is in
> circuit building. I am not familiar with the current system to know
> how this will change things.
More information about the tor-dev