tor-relays October 2017

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

86 participants
56 discussions

Thank you to directory operators
by Tor Node Admin ＠ SechsNullDrei.org 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

Good morning, Relay operators often receive gratitude on this list for running relays, but let's not forget the directory operators - those individuals/organizations who are more central to The Tor Network and run their directory servers at a higher personal risk level than the relay operators. Sincerely, Isaac, <mailto:Tor@SechsNullDrei.org> Tor(a)SechsNullDrei.org

3 2

UbuntuCore
by Paul Templeton 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

These nodes are popping up everywhere - is this some sort of malware being deployed on systems around the globe? Paul

5 4

Relay flag set counts
by grarpamp 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

1 s Authority Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid 2 s Authority Fast Running Stable V2Dir Valid 7 s Authority Running Stable V2Dir Valid 270 s Exit Fast Guard HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid 58 s Exit Fast Guard Running Stable V2Dir Valid 25 s Exit Fast Guard Running Stable Valid 168 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid 71 s Exit Fast Running Stable V2Dir Valid 45 s Exit Fast Running Stable Valid 149 s Exit Fast Running V2Dir Valid 15 s Exit Fast Running Valid 7 s Exit Running Stable V2Dir Valid 10 s Exit Running Stable Valid 3 s Exit Running V2Dir Valid 2 s Exit Running Valid 1293 s Fast Guard HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid 311 s Fast Guard Running Stable V2Dir Valid 167 s Fast Guard Running Stable Valid 1721 s Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid 513 s Fast Running Stable V2Dir Valid 469 s Fast Running Stable Valid 754 s Fast Running V2Dir Valid 200 s Fast Running Valid 96 s Running Stable V2Dir Valid 41 s Running Stable Valid 95 s Running V2Dir Valid 27 s Running Valid

1 0

"Fast" flag definition
by Igor Mitrofanov 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Hi, It looks like 94.7% of all Running relays have the "Fast" flag now. If that percentage becomes 100%, the flag will become meaningless. What were the reasons behind the current definition of "Fast", and are those still valid? If not, should "Fast" become self-adjusting ("faster than 2 Mbps or 70% of all Guard relays, whichever is greater")? Thanks!

3 3

Exit probability
by Dr Gerard Bulger 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

How is exit probability counted? Is it only port 80 exit tested? I exit many 1000s of ports, including 443, but not those of high risk of abuse emails and thus upsetting the ISP. So port 80 along with others are blocked. I realise no port 80 limits the use of the exit so not expecting so see a high probability of exit. But Atlas shows none. Currently of some 3000 connections 200 are exit. Tor atlas show exit probability of 0.0000% Gerry -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: 29 October 2017 12:45 To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] sum of consensus weight of 2 relays running at the same IP On 29 Oct 2017, at 23:30, Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster(a)gmx.de> wrote: >> On 10/29/2017 01:24 PM, teor wrote: >> Possibly. >> >> Are the relays CPU-limited, or bandwidth-limited? > > Not at all, neither limited by a config value nor by the hardware > (1GBit/s, 200 MBit/s guaranteed, i7-3930, all non-Tor processes have > "nice" in front, ids are 1AF72E8906E6C49481A791A6F8F84F8DFEBBB2BA and > 6EABEBF38CE7E3DF672C4DB01383606FE3EB2215) I'm sorry, this doesn't help me answer your question. Usually, a relay is limited by either the available network bandwidth, or by the speed of a single CPU core on the machine. If the first relay used all the available bandwidth, then two relays will eventually have lower consensus weight values. If the first relay used all of a single CPU core for its main thread, then the two relays will eventually have similar consensus weight values. T _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

3 2

sum of consensus weight of 2 relays running at the same IP
by Toralf Förster 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I assumed that 2 Tor at the same ip address would get haöf of the consensus of the previously runnning only one Tor relay at the same hardware. But it semes, that both Tor relays get now the same value as the one before. Is this intended ? - -- Toralf PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EAREIADUWIQQaN2+ZSp0CbxPiTc/E6s3eAHbpTgUCWfW5BRccdG9yYWxmLmZv ZXJzdGVyQGdteC5kZQAKCRDE6s3eAHbpTse3AP9waxb9fe+ECq0QyR2PkS6Tw3j1 Lc+H7UafeeuUalHJngEAg9pg1jHzZnrEir03xCQEeP9HRrtfbKCUBo/AI/40KMo= =wt5I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 3

Testing Golang relay implementation
by Michael McLoughlin 28 Oct '17

28 Oct '17

All, I am working on a pure Golang relay implementation. https://github.com/mmcloughlin/pearl/ I have thus far been testing locally with chutney ( https://gitweb.torproject.org/chutney.git). The project is not complete by any stretch, but I believe I am close to the point where it can handle Tor network traffic. I expect I can learn *a lot* by running against real traffic rather than my sandboxed environment. I wanted to get in touch with the community before going live. Any advice gratefully received. The implementation identifies itself clearly in the server descriptor, both in the "platform" and "contact" items. If people notice any problems with the relay specifically they will be able to contact me. Thanks, Mike

9 17

Atlas / Onionoo ...
by Sebastian Urbach 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Back on the road ;-) -- Sincerely yours / M.f.G. / Sincères salutations Sebastian Urbach --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

2 1

decrease in traffic
by Trey Nolen 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

I'm new to running a Tor relay and started one about a month ago. I've got 50 Mbps dedicated to it and at first it climbed in traffic pretty steadily until it got to around 25-30 Mbps being used. Since then, it has declined steadily and is down to about 350 KBps now (yes, I'm keeping the units straight). My node is a single core VPS running 3.2GHz and with 1GB RAM. Currently, top shows tor as using about 15% of the memory. When it was churning out at the maximum rate it got to, the CPU was pretty hammered. I was considering allocating another core, but there is no need anymore as it is hovering around 7% usage. The server is running on Ubuntu 16.04.3 and I'm running 0.3.1.7 tor. Am I doing something wrong to result in the decrease in traffic? Any advice is appreciated. Trey Nolen

6 14

"Onionoo seems to serve outdated data"
by tor 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

I see "Onionoo seems to serve outdated data :( Last update was: Tue Oct 24 2017" at the top of Atlas, and querying the Onionoo API directly results in the same outdated data. Anyone working on fixing it?

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays October 2017