[tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends.

Mon Nov 10 18:33:39 UTC 2014

Julien, 

Everything is going well now. I've seen spikes going as high as 8MB/s.
Atlas shows 1.x MB/s measured already and the consensus weight has
picked up a little too. It's been improving slowly. 

The problem was my iptables (embarrassing). I had (by mistake)
blacklisted Tor IPs :-| 

Thanks again. 

On 2014-11-05 07:10, Julien ROBIN wrote: 

> Wow, it's not very good
> With an advertised bandwidth raising 1,03MB your consensus weight is now updated to 13 (it's far too low).
> 
> It means that somethings goes bad when bwauth is testing your relay, so even with a very good advertised bandwidth, your final score keeps ultra-low, and with such a consensus wieght, your relay keeps unused by clients.
> 
> I have no idea from where can be the problem (and the solution), technically it could be the ISP that blocks bw auth, but in real facts it would be pretty strange.
> 
> Try to transport your relay (/var/lib/tor/keys and /etc/tor/torrc) to another computer on the same connection (the more different, the better), if it still doesn't works, it means something at your connection make a problem.
> 
> Double check your upload rate is good (since everything have to be transmitted, the lowest bandwidth (generally upload) applies to the relay).
> 
> If your relay appears to be online it means that it means that port redirections is well configured, so I'm not sure that something else could be misconfigured into it (if you have several ones, test a different one)
> 
> Let us know when you find the solution ! This problem is surprising but it cannot be nowhere ;)
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Rafael Rodriguez" <rafaelr at icctek.com>
> À: tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 5 Novembre 2014 00:13:37
> Objet: Re: [tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends.
> 
> Indeed, Julien. 
> 
> As a matter of fact I saw the server (using the Tor network) pushing up to 8.8MB/s at some point while I was using it as a proxy in my setup. That was yesterday. As soon as I closed the SocksListenAddress I was connecting to, it went back to almost not existent cos' it is weighted 10. Even the Fast flag isn't there. As I said, I'm waiting to see if it picks up relevance in the next day or so. 
> 
> On 2014-11-04 14:26, Julien ROBIN wrote: 
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On Tor Atlas after a little time offset, your download seems now to appear into your server stats. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 [1] Your Advertised Bandwidth seems now to be better : 866.83 KB/s
> But the consensus weight is still at 10 (it's like zero) for now (let's wait less that one day)
> 
> In the following hours, we will see if the "consensus weight" value can be better thanks to that (so then true clients will start using the bandwidth and nourish your advertised bandwith).
> 
> If I remember well what I read before, the consensus weight, when recalculated, is the result of your Advertised Bandwidth multiplied by a coefficient obtained by bw authorites (when periodically testing your server). If it's congestionned, the test gives low result and your consensus weight is reduced. If it's really good, your consensus weight is increased (and your server usage too).
> 
> If your consensus weight is stuck at 10 and doesn't increase, it would mean that bw authorities cannot test your server and always gives "zero" as coefficient (if so, you will have to check everything on your network : router, softwares, etc)
> 
> The answer is near :)
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Rafael Rodriguez" < rafaelr at icctek.com >
> À: tor-relays at lists.torproject.org Envoyé: Lundi 3 Novembre 2014 22:04:24
> Objet: Re: [tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends.
> 
> Hi Julien, 
> 
> Thanks for the tip. I did ssh'd tunnel into my Tor server and I can pull downloads at 1-2MB/s as expected. I do not see my server getting any better in measurements though. After 4 days running my Advertised Bandwidth is barely 62kb/s and its Consensus Weight is 10. I wouldn't mind as long as it serves our Tor community but I'm under the impression that something is just not quite right. This box was put in place specifically to put all its bandwidth to good use and help the network. I have the feeling that a Relay measured at such low speeds does more harm than good to the network. I will keep it up there running as it is since I cannot pinpoint a problem at this time and maybe it just needs to stay online for a longer period of time. 
> 
> --- 
> 
> On 2014-11-02 07:29, Julien ROBIN wrote: 
> 
> It strange you still haven't any used bandwidth https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 [1] I cannot explain you why but I have an idea for you in order to "kickstart" your bandwidth usage.
> 
> A tor process used to relay traffic also have the possibility to be used as client. If it's at home, it's easy (socks v5 at 127.0.0.1:9050 if you haven't changed anything), if your relay isn't at home, use SSH tunnelling to do so (SSH session brings you to "localhost" on your remote computer, on the port you choose)
> 
> Try to download something through your relay, if nothing changed, even the "client" bandwidth will be able to raise your advertised and used bandwidth as server, in order for your server to "start" having weight on the network.
> 
> Once "started", everything should be automatic but normally, the start is also automatic after 2 or 3 days, so it is strange. 
> 
> May be it's because of the oversupply of "middle nodes" on the network (there is so much middle nodes that most of them - the slowers - probably keep totally unused). Without the guard flag (and it needs enough bandwidth) your relay cannot be used as entry guard right now.
> 
> Good luck !
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Rafael Rodriguez" < rafaelr at icctek.com >
> À: tor-relays at lists.torproject.org Envoyé: Samedi 1 Novembre 2014 16:16:24
> Objet: Re: [tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends.
> 
> Maybe I should just wait longer but the 3 days unmetered has obviously been passed already. That's why I'm asking about bwauths measurements. 
> 
> I was under the impression that after 3 days bwauths adjust your consensus weight and raises your bandwidth estimate. In this case, the server is simply capped at 20kb/s still while my "advertise bandwidth" is little over 50kb/s. Since I have a 2MB/s relay, I'm expecting to see at least over 100kb/s or 250kb/s measurements to make my relay a usable one. Yet the advertised speed hasn't changed. Is that normal and should I just give it more time? That's what I'm trying to understand. 
> 
> On 2014-11-01 07:00, Krbusek Christian wrote: 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> You may want to read the following, which should make this more clear. https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay [2] Cheers
> 
> Am 01.11.2014 um 10:46 schrieb Rafael Rodriguez: 
> 
> Anyone knows how often bwauths measures a relay? I don't understand why directory authorities have not lifted the 20KB cap for my older relay. Now I have doubts if it could be a problem with my server. This is a 2MB/s relay with burst of 4MB/s to start tuning it and increase it later if stable, which is not being used and has been running for over 3 days. Is it normal for Relays to take longer than three days to start getting at least some traffic and for directory authorities to lift the 20KB cap? Fingerprint 48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUVL1GAAoJECgP5Pn8Zk3/cfoQAI9bMRyx8hl3B+V+vSLC7xoJ
> sfQedgt15LRyJ/+Ru3tQaPDPOkleTKR3rCnKaDiRCmjxibWt4liRUBji2nzDPFJU
> dcD0kEXqCA/H3jyIJWvKnkxvzUfAjCZ7Y7b16sGsJSgVfZ8UFin52loTDgjSz7zU
> tgsqsOBIHT72gr/hbxRBzr3ZP8LZqTDA5baoLFAxnYyxIQwK5eRefI6zMP9cuiOA
> FL4I60Tige+TBp8kDnyKdYosxRJFkkAJN3YCuHuewIgoV0pD/xkScEscYgqp+CWu
> cMQkj5NDDMP/I5ZXw2a64Etq33Hc4SzEm4HvKquu05pS2QgClXu7pg8z2u1BCdPQ
> 7uMZRyKfAnOOwITKVxsKXT5XJySFJXskMLgupLtp3iEA24GfLJTax0pa7xmOeEbb
> nvt2kGdrKvAl3t4PgwvtwuFmfJoqXzjxWMJJRD2s3hXi0TS4WC1y1pccw+INXKsG
> 7sV+dHhqDPwOHpFleHv4RG207Kx6P8+hbNjdeVI8iEelAhKoPfcUJDM/A4aa2ahd
> GB+vZrnuInJlZJeg+hL28Xk1pOxwHtq046nhLosVY7YNDW6CHoD5aruWeQdCT1y5
> AFZ/xqOP+XPWMYj/UJLhWoBFTjYjSUZuxi5c4nGpKoK/OSc1GCZERx8Ec7mJrN2R
> lzlnW4uBh7M+pvMrhRWl
> =rF5K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] 
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3]
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3]

Links:
------
[1]
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765
[2] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay
[3] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20141110/d0d2e2b5/attachment.html>