Re: Asynchronous bandwidth limiting

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: Asynchronous bandwidth limiting

From: John Brooks <special@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:23:23 -0700

Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx

Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx

Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx

Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:23:28 -0500

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5kxrRY6qdDuT9CBZtktmbz6BS9HDGRiDMPokFjTAR9c=; b=gewW6u0kkypbnMEFB6tYlNVqrENO3S5Px7gE+YzEirsMDWuqaD7EuVUFZEoXmEN0Ly fsuTAspaOwJWOrCK0JmngJC+UVVT7YzfOyAKgnKN7Z/K531iAL3YulAz84f2fFKIWf0c sT4pNRvZC5xl6TnrOiytmroUtLVZeqnUI5bak=

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=i5qWwq2VxuaIkQdBo8euunAj6M6rSTBCMBfJr23TCna2ErPHbf+zbGZCYQSjpqXDra ZtH2MCgWZn4PAftdj2bxAKXPAhmG9SOxADJ6eKnqAaGVhOc7tczANux+nlLOPI+YHMX7 +AAbDyBJuVqxkJmbQ5mjVppc834gdBVVT1jtk=

In-reply-to: <200901132215.n0DMFEHV024396@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

References: <200901132215.n0DMFEHV024396@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:58:49 -0700 John Brooks <special@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 *
**********************************************************************