Asynchronous bandwidth limiting

[John Brooks]

Interesting; I wouldn't have expected it to be so high. I only measure my
bandwidth globally, not per-port. In that case, it may be a good idea for
Sebastian to disable the dirport to keep outgoing traffic roughly equivalent
to incoming, since outgoing is his limitation.

 - John Brooks

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Scott Bennett <bennett at cs.niu.edu> wrote:

>     On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:58:49 -0700 John Brooks <
> special at dereferenced.net>
> top-posted:
> >First off, thanks for running a node - the network always needs more
> >bandwidth.
> >
> >As far as i'm aware, it isn't possible to specify incoming and outgoing
> >limits separately, and if it were, the outgoing would always be higher.
> For
> >the most part, relayed traffic is pretty close to 1:1; for everything that
> >comes in, there is equal data going out (to the next node in the chain,
> the
> >source, or the destination). The one major exception to this is the
> >directory; requests for the directory are very small, but the results can
> be
> >pretty large - but, that just means more outgoing than incoming. There is
> no
> >benefit to having more incoming bandwidth than you do outgoing bandwidth.
> >You can always disable the directory (DirPort 0) if you want to avoid that
> >little bit of outgoing traffic, but usually it isn't too significant.
>
>      I disagree.  Now that my relay has been up for well over a month this
> time, pf reports that the RDR rule for the DirPort has handled bytes
> totalling
> nearly 16% of the number of bytes handled by the RDR rule for the ORPort.
> I've usually seen it higher than that, typically around 25%.
>
>
>                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
> **********************************************************************
> * Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
> * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
> * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
> * -- a standing army."                                               *
> *    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
> **********************************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20090113/e5e4876d/attachment.htm>