On 14 Dec. 2016, at 06:01, Rana ranaventures@gmail.com wrote:
After 9 days of running a relay with a stable IP address (with “Stable” flag during the last 4 days) and consensus bw steadily oscillating around 20 despite the 100 Kbyte/s bandwidth measured by Tor and 200 Kbyte/s bandwidth measured on the Internet connection, I guess it is time to quit. My relay is consistently sending less than 20MB every 6 hours, which probably means that is not making a noticeable contribution to Tor network.
I have also been running another relay for the last 5 days from a friend’s home – he has a static IP, a different ISP from mine and twice the bandwidth. His consensus is bw dead locked at 31 and never changes. He is getting Fast flag on and off, no Stable flag, his Atlas measured bandwidth is 150 KB/s. The traffic it relays is only slightly larger than mine, so I guess it is time to quit for this one, too.
Any other advice / ideas welcome.
I'm not sure if you've read this link that was provided earlier: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay
"A new relay, assuming it is reliable and has plenty of bandwidth, goes through four phases: the unmeasured phase (days 0-3) where it gets roughly no use, the remote-measurement phase (days 3-8) where load starts to increase"
The "assuming" should also specify: * low latency to North America / Western Europe, and * can handle thousands of simultaneous connections.
Also, in my experience, the unmeasured and ramp-up phases are several times longer than specified in this post.
Am 13.12.2016 um 20:01 schrieb Rana:
You have been asked for fingerpring or atlas link several times.
The nicknames of the two relays are ZG0 and GG2, respectively
I'm going to repeat the advice I sent to the list a week ago:
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP Date: 4 December 2016 at 20:03:21 AEDT
But I don't know your relay's fingerprint, so I can only repeat the general advice I have given others with similar questions:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010913.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010928.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010916.html
(There are more if you search the list archives.)
That should be enough to get you started, if you'd still like specific advice after reading those threads, feel free to let us know your relay's fingerprint.
And I'll update the advice I sent to you individually for those two fingerprints:
Date: 4 December 2016 at 21:21:19 AEDT
The bandwidth authorities measured your relay as being able to handle approximately
(Neither of these measurements will be reliable until the relays have been up for a few weeks. You can look them up yourself at that time.)
(large pages)
Latest: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html
Your relay can be monitored using atlas at:
ZG0: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/31B8C4C4F1C78F923BD906769297B15A428C4A... GG2: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400C...
Your relay's observed bandwidth is
ZG0: 81.35 KByte/s GG2: 170.79 KByte/s
(hover over the bandwidth heading in atlas for these details), so its consensus weight will be limited to approximately
ZG0: 81 GG2: 170
Your bandwidth rate and burst are
ZG0: 256 KByte/s and 358.4 KByte/s GG2: 153.6 KByte/s and 179.2 KByte/s
Your relay is limited by:
ZG0: its own ability to sustain more than 81.35 KByte/s over a 10 second period GG2: the bandwidth rate of 153.6 KByte/s
In summary:
ZG0: the relay itself reports that it is unable to sustain much tor traffic. GG2: it appears that the relay could handle more traffic, if you increased the bandwidth rate and bandwidth burst.
I feel like I've given the same advice about ZG0 several times now, so I'm going to leave that with you to resolve however you want.
T