Hi all, I am the mnl's operator, On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 05:15:15AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: > > Nearly 49 MB/s seems a bit of a stretch. The server's operator sent me > a note saying that the server is attached to the 1 GB/s campus backbone net, > but it is attached via a 100 Mb/s router, so the reported data rate is four > to five times the rate physically possible due to the router's limitation. > The server, according to its operator, is running on a 2.6 GHz P4, and its > descriptor says the machine is running LINUX. Based upon postings quite a > while back from blutmagie's operator and from a few other operators of very > high-data-rate servers, it seems to me that a 2.6 GHz P4 (Northwood?) running > LINUX would not be capable of handling a load eight to ten times that of > blutmagie, regardless of its network connection's capacity.
Confirmed. Yes, it is a P4 step C, Northwood. > That brings us back to something I've already posted on OR-TALK, namely, > the apparent slowdown in tor traffic that has reduced the traffic through my > tor server by at least 30% and, judging from the reduced peaks shown for a lot > of the high-volume servers listed on the torstatus page, the tor network at > large. If this is actually what has been going on, then not only should the > bug be tracked down and killed ASAP, it serves as a call to rethink the method > of circuit route selection to find ways to prevent a reduction-in-throughput > attack that could be made by almost any creep by setting up a corrupted relay. > (mnl is not even an exit.) The fact of not being an exit node would make it a better corruped relay? I mean, if I would like to DOS the Tor network I would be better to set the trojan node as internal? > (deep breath) I want to state right now that I do not in any way > whatsoever suspect mnl's operator of any nefarious activity. I believe that > he is at least as perplexed over his server's behavior as I am, especially > given other information he provided about events over the weekend. I do not What happened this weekend is that I have not been able to reach that box. Anyway now I recall clearly why I had the impression that it was alive. Indeed ssh did received something from it, it could not complete the login in for other reasons. Being the box hosed by Tor, I can now guess the sshd daemon was only very slow. Regards, Domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature