[tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes

[Tor externet co uk]

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 at lists.torproject.org 
> wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:25:47 +0100
>> From: Tor externet co uk <tor at externet.co.uk>
>> To: tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
>> Subject: [tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes
>> Message-ID: <49c1abc0aa88e1bf8425fdc8e482402d at 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+BLpe7wtmU66Mx