Re: [tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes

[Tor externet co uk <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, that's what I thought, but wasn't sure.

I'll play around for the next few days to see how fast I can get it 
without triggering hibernation.

L

On 2014-10-12 02:04, teor wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2014, at 09:32 , tor-relays-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:25:47 +0100
> > From: Tor externet co uk <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [tor-relays] Question on running bridge nodes
> > Message-ID: <49c1abc0aa88e1bf8425fdc8e482402d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've set up a bridge node in the previous few weeks, but have had to 
> > put
> > a bandwidth limit on, as I only have 10TB of traffic per month before 
> > my
> > ISP will start throttling me to 100k/sec.
> >
> > I wondered whether it was more helpful to the Tor network as a whole 
> > to
> > have have a very fast node which hibernated every 12-15 hours, or if I
> > throttled Tor traffic, so that the node was more stable.
> >
> > I'll confess that I'm far more au fait with the politics of Tor than I
> > am of the exact ins and outs of how the technology works. Any help 
> > would
> > be gratefully received.
> >
> > Thanks
> > L
>
> For relays, where pathing is quite dynamic, we recommend speed +
> hibernation over uptime.
>
> But for bridges, users obtain only 3 bridge descriptors at a time,
> usually via some difficult or dangerous method. We'd want to make sure
> at least 1 stays up at all times (2 for reliability), which would
> favour throttling.
>
>
> teor
> pgp 0xABFED1AC
> hkp://pgp.mit.edu/
> https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5
> http://0bin.net/paste/Mu92kPyphK0bqmbA#Zvt3gzMrSCAwDN6GKsUk7Q8G-eG+Y+BLpe7wtmU66Mx
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays