Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 19:31 -0600 schrieb Scott Bennett:
[â]
> Well, as I've pointed out in the past, the values in cached-consensus
> do *not* accurately reflect either the traffic load that your relay has
> carried or the traffic capacity of your relay. They are bogus a priori and
> should be ignored in attempting to ascertain your relay's actual loads.
> The sad thing is that recent versions of tor clients now use the consensus
> values for designing routes for circuits they will build, so the bogus
> values produce load distortions throughout the tor network. However, that
> fact has no bearing upon the numbers you're looking for.
> If you want to know the loads that your relay has carried, you should
> look at the byte counts for reads and writes in the extrainfo documents or,
> alternatively, the state file. (The difficulty with using the state file
> is that it gets updated everytime construction of a new circuit succeeds,
> so the values for the most recent time periods change frequently and at
> rather unpredictable intervals. If you always ignore the most recent time
> period for read and for writes, then the state file becomes more usable
> for this purpose.) If, OTOH, you want to know the peak "10-second burst"
> rate, then the value to trust is the one in your relay's descriptors that
> appear in the cached-descriptors{,.new} files.
Thank you for your response. I kept that in mind and compared it to the
values in `/var/lib/tor/state` and they are around the same and maybe
even lower. I also use tools like `nload` to verify the network load.
You can also see bandwidth graphs at [2].
I am a little confused why you are responding nitpicking at the values I
give although I think it was confirmed in the whole thread that the full
bandwidth is not used at all.
Thanks,
Paul
[2] http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil