[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

[tor-relays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect

To: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tor-relays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect
From: starlight.2015q3@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:13:03 -0400
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:14:06 -0400
List-archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/>
List-help: <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-id: "support and questions about running Tor relays \(exit, non-exit, bridge\)" <tor-relays.lists.torproject.org>
List-post: <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: "tor-relays" <tor-relays-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Poking around Blutmagie, I suspect the
number of relays with chopped bandwidth
weightings might be more like in the
range of 25-45.

Perhaps the PID-controller algorithm
should be adjusted to bias somewhat
less toward super-fast relays.

_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Prev by Author: [tor-relays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect
Next by Author: [tor-relays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect
Previous by thread: [tor-relays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect
Next by thread: [tor-relays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread