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

Re: Full bandwidth is not used.

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?


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