[tor-relays] Tor relay from home - end of experiment?

[teor]

> On 14 Dec. 2016, at 22:42, Andreas Krey <a.krey at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:43:28 +0000, teor wrote:
> ...
>> The bwauth calculations do take latency into account, and they should:
>> if CPU usage or bandwidth are near their limit, the latency through the
>> relay will be high.
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> I observed my relays (a few years ago) to often run into the bandwidth limit,
> aka 'flatlining', and this having latency. I then started to set lower
> advertised bandwidth, and this went away. Problem here is that these are
> short-term event in relation to the bandwidth probes, so the probing
> can't really control this.
> 
> ...
>> This has the drawback that relays located away from the US/Western
>> Europe get poor scores.
> 
> What kind of latencies are we talking about here? And how much
> latency makes up for what bandwidth?

That's a really good question, the following factors interact:
* bandwidth,
* network peering,
* latency.

I don't know the answer, but in my experience, an Exit relay located in
France picked up bandwidth extremely quickly (peak in 4-5 months), one
in Canada was a little slower (6 months and still at 60% or so) and
some non-Exit relays in Australia are operating at 10% of capacity.
(They don't all have the same bandwidth, so it's not a fair comparison.)

I'd have to ping each of the bwauths from each relay to be sure of the
latencies, but as an example:

To moria1:
France:     94 ms
Australia: 245 ms

To gabelmoobwscan:
France:     15 ms
Australia: 340 ms

Note that it takes several round-trips to set up a TCP connection, and
more round-trips to set up a Tor circuit (and acknowledge cells).

T

-- 
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org
------------------------------------------------------------------------