Hello,
I've only recently joined this list, so I apologise in advance if this is not the appropriate place for my question.
For the past month, I have been operating an exit node ( 89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E ) from UnitedIX in Chicago, IL, US. The server has a dedicated gigabit port, and I had hoped to be able to relay around 200 TB of traffic per month, but for some reason my advertised bandwidth has been hovering at just 12 MiB/s since the first few days.
The server itself is an older Supermicro PfSense server with a Xeon E3-1270v3 at 3.5ghz and 32gb of RAM. It is currently running the latest stable release of FreeBSD (12.0p7) and Tor (0.4.0.5).
As far as I can tell, the machine is mostly idle:
* The Tor process is the most active, and I've yet to see it go above 5% CPU. * Memory usage is under 1.5gb. * Running `speedtest-cli` (even to different servers using the `--server` option) consistently gives 600mbps+ in both directions to most destinations. * There's nothing interesting in `dmesg` or the debug logs.
Does anyone have suggestions for what the bottleneck here might be? I'm happy to share more details about my configuration if that would be helpful.
Thank you in advance for any help that you are willing to provide! I think Tor provides a lot of value, and I would like to provide as much bandwidth as I can to the network.
-- Alec
Hi Alec,
Alec Larsen:
For the past month, I have been operating an exit node ( 89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E ) from UnitedIX in Chicago, IL, US. The server has a dedicated gigabit port, and I had hoped to be able to relay around 200 TB of traffic per month, but for some reason my advertised bandwidth has been hovering at just 12 MiB/s since the first few days.
It takes some time for relay traffic to ramp up, this is especially true for guard relays but to a lesser extend also for exit relays. To understand this process, read about the lifecycle of a new relay [1]: https://blog.torproject.org/lifecycle-new-relay.
[1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide#Torrelaylifecycl...
Thank you for running relay(s).
Cheers, ~Vasilis
I kind of have the same problem, I have a gigabit relay setup too,
https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/B1B10104EB72A1FBBF6687B05F191...
The consensus weight varies wildly and never seems to get very high.
I'm even running on 443 and 80
the replies I got before were basically is what it is and I mean we're still helping the network by running a node,
Matt Westfall President & CIO ECAN Solutions, Inc. Everything Computers and Networks 804.592.1672
------ Original Message ------ From: "Alec Larsen" hello@alec.ninja To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Sent: 7/11/2019 10:23:21 PM Subject: [tor-relays] Unutilized bandwidth
Hello,
I've only recently joined this list, so I apologise in advance if this is not the appropriate place for my question.
For the past month, I have been operating an exit node ( 89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E ) from UnitedIX in Chicago, IL, US. The server has a dedicated gigabit port, and I had hoped to be able to relay around 200 TB of traffic per month, but for some reason my advertised bandwidth has been hovering at just 12 MiB/s since the first few days.
The server itself is an older Supermicro PfSense server with a Xeon E3-1270v3 at 3.5ghz and 32gb of RAM. It is currently running the latest stable release of FreeBSD (12.0p7) and Tor (0.4.0.5).
As far as I can tell, the machine is mostly idle:
- The Tor process is the most active, and I've yet to see it go above
5% CPU.
- Memory usage is under 1.5gb.
- Running `speedtest-cli` (even to different servers using the
`--server` option) consistently gives 600mbps+ in both directions to most destinations.
- There's nothing interesting in `dmesg` or the debug logs.
Does anyone have suggestions for what the bottleneck here might be? I'm happy to share more details about my configuration if that would be helpful.
Thank you in advance for any help that you are willing to provide! I think Tor provides a lot of value, and I would like to provide as much bandwidth as I can to the network.
-- Alec
Hi Matt,
First of all thank you for running relays.
Matt Westfall:
I kind of have the same problem, I have a gigabit relay setup too,
https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/B1B10104EB72A1FBBF6687B05F191...
The consensus weight varies wildly and never seems to get very high.
I'm even running on 443 and 80
the replies I got before were basically is what it is and I mean we're still helping the network by running a node,
Your relay got disconnected some times ago, you could see this on the 6-month graph of your relay illustrated in the history section of relay search on Tor metrics. Usually when a relay has been stable for some time it should be using all available bandwidth, failure to do so may indicate that a server/network problem.
Also Alec's relay (89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E9) advertised bandwidth increased to 21.45 MiB/s (was 12 MiB/s 5 days ago).
I hope this helps.
Cheers, ~Vasilis
You're right, it went offline for around 2 days due to a power outage and a Bios error that needed continue pressed.
That's what the stable flag is for, lol.
I lost guard probability for 2 more weeks.
If a relay has been up connected and stable for more than 2 weeks, it gets the -stable- flag so it's leaned on more.
That doesn't really affect the underlying issue of tor nodes with TONS of bandwidth not being utilized a little more.
But I'm happy to donate whatever the tor protocol decides it wants to use :(
Matt Westfall President & CIO ECAN Solutions, Inc. Everything Computers and Networks 804.592.1672
------ Original Message ------ From: "Vasilis" andz@torproject.org To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Sent: 7/17/2019 9:00:00 PM Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unutilized bandwidth
Hi Matt,
First of all thank you for running relays.
Matt Westfall:
I kind of have the same problem, I have a gigabit relay setup too,
https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/B1B10104EB72A1FBBF6687B05F191...
The consensus weight varies wildly and never seems to get very high.
I'm even running on 443 and 80
the replies I got before were basically is what it is and I mean we're still helping the network by running a node,
Your relay got disconnected some times ago, you could see this on the 6-month graph of your relay illustrated in the history section of relay search on Tor metrics. Usually when a relay has been stable for some time it should be using all available bandwidth, failure to do so may indicate that a server/network problem.
Also Alec's relay (89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E9) advertised bandwidth increased to 21.45 MiB/s (was 12 MiB/s 5 days ago).
I hope this helps.
Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162 Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5FBF70B1D1260162
Hi Matt,
On 30 Jul 2019, at 21:18, Matt Westfall mwestfall@ecansol.com wrote:
You're right, it went offline for around 2 days due to a power outage and a Bios error that needed continue pressed.
That's what the stable flag is for, lol.
I lost guard probability for 2 more weeks.
If a relay has been up connected and stable for more than 2 weeks, it gets the -stable- flag so it's leaned on more.
That doesn't really affect the underlying issue of tor nodes with TONS of bandwidth not being utilized a little more.
But I'm happy to donate whatever the tor protocol decides it wants to use :(
Comcast typically has poor peering to Europe and some other top-tier networks. We've investigated these issues in the past: search the list archives.
So your relay's bandwidth to the rest of the tor network may be accurately represented by its consensus weight.
T
Maybe it was meant to be like that may be your server needed to be rebooted
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
-------- Original Message -------- On 1 Aug 2019, 01.42, teor wrote:
Hi Matt,
On 30 Jul 2019, at 21:18, Matt Westfall mwestfall@ecansol.com wrote:
You're right, it went offline for around 2 days due to a power outage and a Bios error that needed continue pressed.
That's what the stable flag is for, lol.
I lost guard probability for 2 more weeks.
If a relay has been up connected and stable for more than 2 weeks, it gets the -stable- flag so it's leaned on more.
That doesn't really affect the underlying issue of tor nodes with TONS of bandwidth not being utilized a little more.
But I'm happy to donate whatever the tor protocol decides it wants to use :(
Comcast typically has poor peering to Europe and some other top-tier networks. We've investigated these issues in the past: search the list archives.
So your relay's bandwidth to the rest of the tor network may be accurately represented by its consensus weight.
T
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 02:23:21 +0000 Alec Larsen hello@alec.ninja wrote:
Hello,
I've only recently joined this list, so I apologise in advance if this is not the appropriate place for my question.
For the past month, I have been operating an exit node ( 89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E ) from UnitedIX in Chicago, IL, US. The server has a dedicated gigabit port, and I had hoped to be able to relay around 200 TB of traffic per month, but for some reason my advertised bandwidth has been hovering at just 12 MiB/s since the first few days.
The server itself is an older Supermicro PfSense server with a Xeon E3-1270v3 at 3.5ghz and 32gb of RAM. It is currently running the latest stable release of FreeBSD (12.0p7) and Tor (0.4.0.5).
As far as I can tell, the machine is mostly idle:
- The Tor process is the most active, and I've yet to see it go above 5% CPU.
- Memory usage is under 1.5gb.
- Running `speedtest-cli` (even to different servers using the `--server` option) consistently gives 600mbps+ in both directions to most destinations.
- There's nothing interesting in `dmesg` or the debug logs.
Does anyone have suggestions for what the bottleneck here might be? I'm happy to share more details about my configuration if that would be helpful.
Thank you in advance for any help that you are willing to provide! I think Tor provides a lot of value, and I would like to provide as much bandwidth as I can to the network.
Regardless of any further steps you do, just set up a 2nd instance of Tor right now and let it start warming up. The single most effective way to improve bandwidth efficiency is to add instances. The ideal would be running one for each CPU core, but currently the hard limit is 2 instances per IPv4 address. And it is understandable that getting more public IPv4 is often either not an option or not economically feasible.
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
Alec Larsen -
David Poulsen -
Matt Westfall -
Roman Mamedov -
teor -
Vasilis