Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: > Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: > > Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepanter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: > > > : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is > > > : still below 100 KB/s. > > > > > > What is the network configuration? > > > > $ more /etc/tor/torrc > > SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application > > connections > > ControlPort 9051 > > ORPort 443 > > ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 > > Address 62.141.42.186 > > ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel <paul@xxxxxxx> > > DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections > > DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 > > I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and > Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the > following line. > > ExitPolicy reject *:* > > > It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded > > by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On > > the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 > > and 9091. > > > > Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` > > I have the following. > > > > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 > > > > There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded > > Tor. > > > > In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is > > > > r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 > > s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid > > v Tor 0.2.1.23 > > w Bandwidth=61 > > p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 > > > > and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before > > the update (11:14 UTC). > > Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 > 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and > the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I > would say, that traffic even decreased. > > $ grep -A 6 "62.141.42.186" cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' > published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 > published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 > $ grep -A 6 "62.141.42.186" cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 > $ LANG=C date && grep -A 6 "62.141.42.186" cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth > Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 > $ LANG=C date && grep -A 6 "62.141.42.186" cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' > Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 > published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 > published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 > published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 > bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 > > The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. > > Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. > > $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. > r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSPBCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 > s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid > w Bandwidth=63 > $ ls -al (adapted) > 384600 9. MÃr 21:27 cached-consensus > w Bandwidth=102 > 362245 9. MÃr 23:15 cached-consensus > w Bandwidth=90 > 342063 10. MÃr 07:32 cached-consensus > w Bandwidth=88 > # (configure as non-exit relay) > 356455 10. MÃr 11:14 cached-consensus > w Bandwidth=86 > 385656 10. MÃr 21:16 cached-consensus > w Bandwidth=81 > w Bandwidth=64 > 390325 11. MÃr 20:03 cached-consensus > w Bandwidth=58 > Thu Mar 11 20:21:07 UTC 2010 > w Bandwidth=58 > anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 > w Bandwidth=52 > r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 > w Bandwidth=52 > > Do you have more ideas? Anyone? See [2]. Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? Thanks, Paul > [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jan-2010/msg00175.html > [2] http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil