[tor-talk] OnionBalance Hidden Service has over 1 million successful hits in just 3 days

Thu Jul 9 04:23:32 UTC 2015

OK, you may be able to match the following times with your logs - each
had multiple connection failures (looks like any pending connection
died). Times are in UTC

1436393744 - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:15:44
1436396224 - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:57:04
1436399231 - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:47:11
1436400042 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:42
1436400868 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:14:28
1436403696 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:01:36
1436404315 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:11:55
1436405498 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:31:38
1436406217 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:43:37
1436407074 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:57:54
1436409062 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 02:31:02
1436409898 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 02:44:58

There's no correlation between those times and entries in my Tor
client's log.

Ben <ben at gerbil.it> wrote:
> Seems plausible, though from what I have logged it's hard to tell. All
> the time calculations are 0, which may mean that curl completely failed
> to connect, or that it's counters don't work if the connection fails
> (I'm not sure which is true).
> 
> I forgot to tell it to add a timestamp, so comparison against your logs
> would be nigh on impossible - have set the same script running with
> timestamps added, will keep an eye to see whether any failed connections
> have been logged.
> 
> I do, however, have some entries in my tor client logs
> 
> Jul 08 09:03:55.000 [notice] Rend stream is 120 seconds late. Giving up
> on address '[scrubbed].onion'.
> 
> (time is UTC) 
> 
> though there aren't enough to account for all the failed connections.
> 
> 
> Thomas White <thomaswhite at riseup.net> wrote:
> > I wonder if the curl 000 codes match up against our 408 codes for a
> > timeout? So the connection was made, the request was about to be made
> > then the circuit failed? I'm not overly familiar with the precise
> > nature of curl or apache logging systems.
> > 
> > On 08/07/2015 15:39, Ben wrote:
> > >> From the client end, I've seen occasions where I couldn't connect
> > >> to the
> > > HS, though it's a very small percentage (around 1.5%).
> > > 
> > > Count Status code 590 000 408391 200
> > > 
> > > 000 being the code curl returns when it couldn't connect. In terms
> > > of time to serve, there's a fair range of variation in terms of the
> > > total connection time.
> > > 
> > > Count  Seconds 45207 0 149979 1 103050 2 55134 3 27011 4 13688 5 
> > > 7405 6 4022 7 2217 8 1324 9
> > > 
> > > All connections were established in less than a second, and the
> > > time to first byte was generally < 2 seconds
> > > 
> > > Count TTFB 590 0 408479 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 5 8 10 9
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Obviously some of the variation might be down to my client's
> > > connection rather than the hidden service, it's running on a stable
> > > 100Mb/s connection, though the traffic graphs show some fluctuation
> > > in the bandwidth being used (attached - stats taken at the NIC so
> > > likely includes other traffic though the test will be the primary
> > > use).
> > > 
> > > Happy to send the stats file in full if it's of any use to you.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thomas White <thomaswhite at riseup.net> wrote:
> > >> Just to expand on s7r's number, I just pulled the latest logs
> > >> from the servers and compiled a quick breakdown of the HTTP
> > >> codes, bandwidth etc for anyone interested:
> > >> 
> > >> HTTP Code: 200 (OK) Bandwidth used (bytes): 690,400,220,422 Hits:
> > >> 4,784,288
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> HTTP Code: 206 (Partial Content) Bandwidth used (bytes):
> > >> 5,202,918 Hits: 64
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> HTTP Code: 304 (Not Modified) Bandwidth used (bytes): 52,059 
> > >> Hits: 259
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> HTTP Code: 404 (Not Found) Bandwidth used (bytes): 266,053 Hits:
> > >> 611
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> HTTP Code: 403 (Forbidden) Bandwidth used (bytes): 2,908 Hits: 7
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> HTTP Code: 408 (Request Timeout) Bandwidth used (bytes): 0 Hits:
> > >> 5,442
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Total bandwidth usage (bytes): 690,405,744,360 (690 GB)
> > >> 
> > >> Total hits: 4,790,671
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Not bad for a few days work guys!
> > >> 
> > >> T
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On 08/07/2015 03:00, s7r wrote:
> > >>> *Numbers look good: Over 4 million hits in 7 days.*
> > >>> 
> > >>> I want again to use this opportunity to say THANK YOU to
> > >>> everyone who is contributing and stress testing. 4 million
> > >>> requests tell me people are putting quite some effort into it.
> > >>> Please continue to stress test as much as you can in the next
> > >>> days. After I collect some rendezvous circuit stats also, we
> > >>> will stop the test - don't want to overkill the network, prefer
> > >>> to leave more bandwidth capacity for users.
> > >>> 
> > >>> I was waiting to have some rendezvous circuit statistics as
> > >>> well, to compare them with the hits on the webserver and have
> > >>> an overview on the circuits stats and average number of
> > >>> requests per circuit. Hopefully this will happen in the next
> > >>> days. Since you asked, here are the exact numbers now.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The service was started 1st July 2015. Here are the counts
> > >>> today, 8th July (little over 7 days of uptime):
> > >>> 
> > >>> Failback instance #1: 956281 Failback instance #2: 732187
> > >>> Failback instance #3: 837818 Failback instance #4: 768636
> > >>> Failback instance #5: 911546 =============================
> > >>> TOTAL: 4206468
> > >>> 
> > >>> There are no significant warnings or errors - the same
> > >>> instances are running since service first started, no reboot or
> > >>> application restart. I am happy with how it works. As you can
> > >>> see we have *over 4 million hits*. The number of requests per
> > >>> failback instance confirms the load is fairly spread.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Hidden service http://eujuuws2nacz4xw4.onion/ up and strong!
> > >>> 
> > >>> On 7/8/2015 1:48 AM, tqr2813d376cjozqap1l at tutanota.com wrote:
> > >>>> 4. Jul 2015 22:57 by s7r at sky-ip.org <mailto:s7r at sky-ip.org>:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> After little over 3 days of uptime, the OnionBalance hidden 
> > >>>> service http://eujuuws2nacz4xw4.onion 
> > >>>> <http://eujuuws2nacz4xw4.onion/> was successfully accessed
> > >>>> over 1 Million times. There was no complaint in any of the
> > >>>> running Tor instance s.
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>>> Hey s7r, things still looking OK? How are the numbers now?
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >> -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org To
> > >> unsubscribe or change other settings go to 
> > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > -- 
> > tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org
> > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk