Send tor-relays mailing list
submissions to
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to
tor-relays-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
tor-relays-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
more specific
than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: #torstrike (D.S. Ljungmark)
2. Re: #torstrike (Volker Mink)
3. Guard vs Exit Bandwidth (Tristan)
4. Re: Guard vs Exit Bandwidth (Green Dream)
5. Re: Guard vs Exit Bandwidth (Tristan)
6. Re: total relay bandwidth (grarpamp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:26:35 +0200
From: "D.S. Ljungmark"
<spider@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] #torstrike
Message-ID:
<e91d9a79-b03e-01b6-28b9-2efcb5ebba58@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I just multiplied my BandwidthRate with a bit for my
exit.
//Spid
On 02/09/16 02:28, Tristan wrote:
> Is the Tor strike today? Because I just set up a
second instance on my
> relay to get the most out of its bandwidth.
>
> Oops 😏
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
>
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 843 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <
http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/c0f7b783/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:33:54 +0200
From: Volker Mink
<volker.mink@xxxxxx>
To:
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] #torstrike
Message-ID:
<5AD00FAC-7313-4EE3-A0DC-AA404DB25305@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Good job, thank you!
> Am 02.09.2016 um 17:26 schrieb D.S. Ljungmark
<spider@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> I just multiplied my BandwidthRate with a bit for
my exit.
>
> //Spid
>
>
>> On 02/09/16 02:28, Tristan wrote:
>> Is the Tor strike today? Because I just set up
a second instance on my
>> relay to get the most out of its bandwidth.
>>
>> Oops 😏
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tor-relays mailing list
>>
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
>
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2368 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <
http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/52b2c96f/attachment-0001.bin>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:24:22 -0500
From: Tristan
<supersluether@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tor-relays] Guard vs Exit Bandwidth
Message-ID:
<CAKkV4FEWg6u1EmU-vit_9UbBxd5FS3HufD1g8ovy4iUgz-Wnuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Looking at the advertised bandwidth vs bandwidth history
from Tor
Metrics[1], it appears that guard relays see much more
traffic than exit
relays. I think it might be partially because
guard-only, guard-middle and
guard-exits aren't separated, but would it really skew
the numbers that
much?
[1]
http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/bandwidth-flags.html
--
Finding information, passing it along. ～SuperSluether
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/b2ca7fc7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:51:08 -0700
From: Green Dream
<greendream848@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Guard vs Exit Bandwidth
Message-ID:
<CAAd2PDJM+noPH+E4EwzhH_UOTKdva1DduaOe7v=hbKxm05LETw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Don't forget that some traffic enters through guards but
lands on
hidden services, skipping Exits.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:53:40 -0500
From: Tristan
<supersluether@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Guard vs Exit Bandwidth
Message-ID:
<CAKkV4FGhqFP-vuePwmq0+6sdiqvxFFdUQhQeUb8TuUSedOXkSQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
But hidden service traffic makes up about 0.01% of Tor
traffic.
Total is about 75Gb/s:
http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/bandwidth.html
Hidden services are about 900Mb/s:
http://rougmnvswfsmd4dq.onion/hidserv-rend-relayed-cells.html
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Green Dream
<greendream848@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Don't forget that some traffic enters through
guards but lands on
> hidden services, skipping Exits.
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
>
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
--
Finding information, passing it along. ～SuperSluether
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160902/9d6a669a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:55:49 -0400
From: grarpamp
<grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] total relay bandwidth
Message-ID:
<CAD2Ti28WQqFCBTKS8UTiGO0fbHH=u+ek5g57V+_xYunhNyVvMw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Michael Armbruster
<tor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 at 13:18, jensm1 wrote:
>> which shows that the advertised relay bandwidth
in the whole network is
>> more than double the actually used bandwidth.
While it's certainly nice
>> to have a bit of breathing space to absorb load
spikes, I'm wondering,
> it's always good to have even more relays or exit
nodes, as more "hop
> points" for connections means more diversity
throughout the network
Once a net reaches adequate bandwidth capacity, adding
more
nodes can do a few things among others...
Good:
- Gives operators deployment experience till their bw is
needed, at $cost.
- More non-evil relays gives better odds of building a
non-evil path, but tor
weight's things so not exactly.
- May add some capacity for directory operations etc
Bad:
- Yields rather unused nodes making it easier for
passive
observer to see you tack up and use a path through them,
especially if you're crafting paths.
One key here is probably that we don't have a good idea
as to the
quantity of evil nodes, or the hard interest and real
capabilities of PA's.
To make the call you'd need that, and perf metrics of
your net under
different ratios of advertised:consumed:nodecount, and
min/avg/max/stddev
of idle/random/full paths, to find any sweet spots /
ranges.
Also considerations of impact adding nodes of less
bandwidth or
more latency than average, versus a campaign to fund
replace them.
At 42% util by one metric, it may be money and time
better spent
elsewhere, even on better qualifying the default 'more
nodes good' idea.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
------------------------------
End of tor-relays Digest, Vol 68, Issue 6
*****************************************