Whoa wow. . .
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because I used it for to browse and then download the TBB bundle as a test.
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement for a bridge is strictly passive? Presumably that also means that it is not used as a criteria for dissemination?
I don't have that much knowledge on bridges, but I think it's the same as with relays: The speed increases after some time.
I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309 and as you can see from the graphs the speed increased slowly after the start. On saturday I increased the advertised bandwidth from 100 MBit/s to 200 MBit/s and reloaded tor. That's the only short drop I can see.
~Josef
Am 05.01.2015 um 11:57 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
Whoa wow. . .
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because I used it for to browse and then download the TBB bundle as a test.
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement for a bridge is strictly passive? Presumably that also means that it is not used as a criteria for dissemination?
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Bridge behavior is decidedly different than normal relay behavior--I've been running one for a year.
Normal relays get poked fairly often by the four "BWAuth" bandwidth authorities and bandwidth starts at 20KB and rises steadily from the get-go.
I suppose the bandwidth calculation is passive in both situations, but with a new bridge there is zero traffic until it's given out to users. So the self-calculation decays steadily to zero instead of rising steadily as with a regular relay. Regular relays get hit with traffic as soon as they show up in the authority consensus.
At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I don't have that much knowledge on bridges, but I think it's the same as with relays: The speed increases after some time.
I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309 and as you can see from the graphs the speed increased slowly after the start. On saturday I increased the advertised bandwidth from 100 MBit/s to 200 MBit/s and reloaded tor. That's the only short drop I can see.
~Josef
Am 05.01.2015 um 11:57 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
Whoa wow. . .
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because I used it for to browse and then download the TBB bundle as a test.
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement for a bridge is strictly passive? Presumably that also means that it is not used as a criteria for dissemination?
I know. That's why I said that I don't have that much knowledge about bridges but think that they are treated like relays.
Am 05.01.2015 um 12:18 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
BTW you are running normal Tor public relay rather than a Bridge.
At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Unquestionably Bridges are different.
Suggest you read about it--lots of info to be found.
At 13:08 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I know. That's why I said that I don't have that much knowledge about bridges but think that they are treated like relays.
Am 05.01.2015 um 12:18 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
BTW you are running normal Tor public relay rather than a Bridge.
At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309
I meant treated like relays in relation to traffic ...
Am 05.01.2015 um 13:22 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
Unquestionably Bridges are different.
Suggest you read about it--lots of info to be found.
At 13:08 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I know. That's why I said that I don't have that much knowledge about bridges but think that they are treated like relays.
Am 05.01.2015 um 12:18 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
BTW you are running normal Tor public relay rather than a Bridge.
At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
That's what 'we' found out now :-)
Am 05.01.2015 um 13:50 schrieb starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx:
Apparently not.
At 13:25 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
I meant treated like relays in relation to traffic ...
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx transcribed 0.5K bytes:
Whoa wow. . .
Bridge relays conduct both bandwidth and reachability self-tests. (See §2.1.3 of torspec.git/path-spec.txt.) The Bridge then includes its self-measured bandwidth as the bandwidth-observed value on the "bandwidth" line of its (bridge-)server-descriptor, which it submits to the BridgeAuthority. (See §2.1.1 of torspec.git/dir-spec.txt.)
The BridgeAuthority then (also) conducts a reachability test of the Bridge's ORPort, afterwards the BridgeAuthority takes the lesser value of the bandwidth-observed (as measured by the Bridge itself) and the bandwidth rate limit (as specified by the Bridge's operator in the Bridge's torrc) (§3.4.2 torspec.git/dir-spec.txt) to be the value for the "w" line in the bridge-networkstatus document (which is kind of like a mix between a microdescriptor-vonsensus and a consensus, except that it's really its own crazy document format, and it's only for Bridge relays). (To see examples of what these descriptors look like, see [0])
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because I used it for to browse and then download the TBB bundle as a test.
I believe that client activity shouldn't effect your reported bandwidth (but I'm not entirely sure, actually).
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement for a bridge is strictly passive?
Yes, currently there is only the Bridge's self-reported bandwidth. There is no infrastructure for authoritatively measuring any of the Bridges' bandwidths, however, I need this infrastructure, and its creation is currently being prioritised, so hopefully it will exist quite soon. :)
Presumably that also means that it is not used as a criteria for dissemination?
No, it is not used.
Bridges may lie all they like about their bandwidths in their descriptors; in fact, a Bridge may lie about many things in its descriptors. However, BridgeDB is programmed, loosely speaking, to take certain descriptor information more or less seriously, depending on which information it is and which of the Bridge's descriptors it originated from.
[0]: https://para.noid.cat/bridgedb/descriptors.html
I allowed the bridge bandwidth decay over a couple of days back to 8KBbyte, which seems to be the floor. "Fast" flag was dropped.
After about a day that way, the bridge/relay daemon started running an occasional "bandwidth self-test", the rate went up to 60KB and the "fast" flag returned.
Appears as though the self-check here is looking for a minimum level and not trying to push to maximum useable bandwidth, but this is only a casual observation.
Six days in and no "stable" flag, but I'm hoping to see it in the next couple of days.
At 05:57 1/5/2015 -0500, starlight.2015q1@binnacle.cx wrote:
Whoa wow. . .
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because I used it to browse and then download the TBB bundle as a test.
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement for a bridge is strictly passive? Presumably that also means that it is not used as a criteria for dissemination?
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
isis -
Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner -
starlight.2015q1＠binnacle.cx