Digital ocean does not currently charge for going over your data limit. On Jan 31, 2015 1:51 PM, tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org wrote:
Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
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@lists.torproject.org
You can reach the person managing the list at tor-relays-owner@lists.torproject.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: entry guard interference? (starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx)
- Re: entry guard interference? (starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx)
- Re: Digital Ocean: Moving to better Plan (Abhiram Chintangal)
- Re: Consensus weight dropped (Bram de Boer)
- Re: Consensus weight dropped (starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx)
- Re: Consensus weight dropped (starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx)
- Re: Consensus weight dropped (Network Operations Center)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 09:26:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] entry guard interference? At 06:20 1/31/2015 -0500, grarpamp wrote:
Yet during the time of an outage, you might try to leave the old tor running and. . .
I see the idea here but it's a lot of fiddling and preparation. If it continues to happen and I suspect a bug, I'll upgrade the relay version and run 'tcpdump' with a ring-buffer capture that holds the last two or three hours of traffic. Then I just have to stop the 'tcpdump' and review what happened. Look for ICMP "not reachable," injected RST's etc.
If my "just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" theory is correct, it may never happen again. Certainly the spooks of the world all read the Tor mailing lists.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:04:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] entry guard interference? At 06:20 1/31/2015 -0500, grarpamp wrote:
Yet during the time of an outage, you might try to leave the old tor running and. . .
Also I see I should make a copy of the cached-* files and the state file in case some anomaly is present the Tor routing data.
I did look at Vidalia'a network map at the time of the incident and the list of relays on the left side looked ok. On the right side something like
<path> <path> etc
appeared where client connections normally are listed.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Abhiram Chintangal abhiram.chintangal@gmail.com To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:22:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Digital Ocean: Moving to better Plan Hello Sebastian,
Thanks for responding.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Sebastian Urbach sebastian@urbach.org wrote:
On January 31, 2015 2:09:14 AM Abhiram Chintangal < abhiram.chintangal@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Abhiram,
I have been running a tor middle relay[1] for the past few months.
Thank you very much !
One thing that I noticed in the last two months is that my relay is eating up the 1tb bandwidth in the first three weeks. So I am thinking of moving to a better plan or tweaking the current config to serve the bandwidth so that the relay is up for the entire month.
I assume that you want a recommendation. A better plan probably means spending more money. Would be better for the network. If you can spare the money, go for it.
If you dont want to spend more money than it would be a good idea to lower the Rate value until you end up within your traffic limit for the month. The benefit would be a permanent available relay.
Hmm, I think I will try changing the rate and see what happens. Last year, I used a daily limit instead of monthly one. It drastically reduced the relays reported bandwidth ( 1Mbps to 60 kbps ).
Thanks!
--
Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations / M.f.G.
Sebastian Urbach
Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956), American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist and critic.
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-- Abhiram Chintangal
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bram de Boer list-tor-relays@nosur.com To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 20:54:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped All,
Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and not improving. For a network that attempts to break censorship, it is peculiar that this is getting so little attention.
Apparently a few malfunctioning bwauth systems is enough to censor specific Tor relays. Endless research and development effort is put in tweaking and optimizing the relay-to-relay communication, but having only a few systems in the world that determine the consensus weight of the entire network does not seem to trouble anyone. Wierd.
I hope the bwauth operators can find a way to correct the problem. I am feeling silly spending good money on a high-end server with unmetered bandwidth that has now been relaying a whopping 300 Kb/s on average during the last five weeks.
Thanks, Bram
Thank you all for looking into this.
Karsten wrote:
You could start a second relay on the same physical machine on a different port and see whether the bandwidth scanners pick that up. Give it a day or two, and see if only tor26 and moria1 measure it.
In fact, both the 7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 and E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 relays operate on the same IP address. Both dropped to 0.000000%.
However, other nodes in the same AS16265 are doing fine (e.g. B144DC5C08AF1FB3ABD729AFC2CF938CF63F78AC). This seems to suggest that the route between the bwauths and the relay is irrelevant and connectivity is not an issue.
I can imagine that an overloaded bwauth occasionally skips a few relays. But wouldn't that be corrected automatically during the measurement the next day? Given that the relays are missing votes consistently during
many
consecutive days, some other mechanism must be causing this.
Would a quick-fix be to randomize the order in which relays are measured? That way, if a bwauth has trouble processing the entire list in 24h,
every
day other relays are given a chance?
Thanks, Bram
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:23:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote:
Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and not improving. . .
I read the earlier discussion around this issue with interest. Have no specific ideas about resolving the problem, but I can recommend pulling the raw text data files for the authority votes, grep'ping your nodes, and looking at the specific BWauth votes over time.
The data is found here
https://collector.torproject.org/archive/relay-descriptors/votes/
and while the files are a bit huge, are easy to whack at with *nix command line tools such as egrep/awk/sed/perl etc. In a pinch one might apply Excel to the problem, but first trim the data set down to size with a grep or your desktop and Excel will choke and die.
I did this at the point where the bandwidth for election to guard status was increased greatly and my node was shipped off to middle- relay mediocrity. Could see clearly how it all transpired, but of course I could do nothing about it short of spending more $$ on bandwidth.
With the raw data in hand, it will be easier to campaign the operators of the troublesome BWauths to correct the problem.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped also, for recent data. . .
https://collector.torproject.org/recent/
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Network Operations Center noc@schokomil.ch To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Cc: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 21:51:12 +0100 Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped This has already been done. And I was under the impression that things would be changing soon. I still find it weird that the network is ignoring several nodes.
On 31.01.2015 09:23 PM, starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx wrote:
At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote:
Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and not improving. . .
I read the earlier discussion around this issue with interest. Have no specific ideas about resolving the problem, but I can recommend pulling the raw text data files for the authority votes, grep'ping your nodes, and looking at the specific BWauth votes over time.
The data is found here
https://collector.torproject.org/archive/relay-descriptors/votes/
and while the files are a bit huge, are easy to whack at with *nix command line tools such as egrep/awk/sed/perl etc. In a pinch one might apply Excel to the problem, but first trim the data set down to size with a grep or your desktop and Excel will choke and die.
I did this at the point where the bandwidth for election to guard status was increased greatly and my node was shipped off to middle- relay mediocrity. Could see clearly how it all transpired, but of course I could do nothing about it short of spending more $$ on bandwidth.
With the raw data in hand, it will be easier to campaign the operators of the troublesome BWauths to correct the problem.
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
Jan Nielsen