Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the following line. ExitPolicy reject *:* It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I would say, that traffic even decreased. $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSPBCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=63 $ ls -al (adapted) 384600 9. Mär 21:27 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=102 362245 9. Mär 23:15 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=90 342063 10. Mär 07:32 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=88 # (configure as non-exit relay) 356455 10. Mär 11:14 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=86 385656 10. Mär 21:16 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=81 w Bandwidth=64 390325 11. Mär 20:03 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=58 Thu Mar 11 20:21:07 UTC 2010 w Bandwidth=58 anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=52 r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=52 Do you have more ideas? Anyone? See [2]. Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jan-2010/msg00175.html [2] http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: (FWD) [or-cvs] [tor/master] let people test the RefuseUnknownExits idea
hello to everyone, For info, as non-exit relay, i has only the warn whe i send my previous message. So it look like a bad cor corrupt client has try to connect to me. Anyway seem good to have this feature for non exit too :P Best Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Switching from windows to linux - config problems
I wish I knew. I first thought after all the help that maybe i missed a number in the key. That wasn't it, so I changed Virtual drives to see if if a different drive would make a difference. Theoretically, i would not think so. However, it seems to work ok on the other Virtual drive. It was really weird. On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Michael Gomboc michael.gom...@gmail.com wrote: I'm curious, what was the problem? 2010/3/15 Jon torance...@gmail.com Thanks,, the key issue has been resolved. Appreciate all the help :) On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Michael Gomboc michael.gom...@gmail.com wrote: For more help, please post the exact output of the first and the second command. regards, Michael 2010/3/12 Jon torance...@gmail.com I followed the instructions on the Debian/Ubuntu web page. Please show what you added to your sources.list. deb http://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org lenny main What distro are you running? Debian 5.03 and 5.04, Unbuntu server 9.10 and desktop Unbuntu 9.10 Is your Internet connection configured? yes, I can get out with no problems What is the output of: gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv 886DDD89 After gpg --export A3C4F0F979CAA22CDBA8F512EE8CBC9E886DDD89 | sudo apt-key add - everything works fine except when the export line is put in. I end up with an error saying something to the effect that the public key is invalid. ( i dont have a c/p of it, I am trying to remember from memory ) Just like you did, getting it right, the guys on IRC channel went thru it with me also and did some little tricks and they all came out exactly. But when I still added the last line, same thing happened. The only thing I can think of is I am using a Virtual drive, and that last line breaks. But my gut tells me that is not the problem. I may have to dig in the celler and bring out some old box's and trying it in a Hard Drive straight and see if the same issue happens. I am hoping to be able to use it thru a Virtual Drive if I can. Thanks On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Michael Gomboc michael.gom...@gmail.com wrote: What distro are you running? Please show what you added to your sources.list. Is your Internet connection configured? What is the output of: gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv 886DDD89 After gpg --export A3C4F0F979CAA22CDBA8F512EE8CBC9E886DDD89 | sudo apt-key add - you should see that: OK I tested it right now with Ubuntu and there is no problem. Regards, Michael 2010/3/12 Jon torance...@gmail.com I am in the process now of wanting to move up to linux for my main relay OS. I have been running windows xp and 7. I have tried on 3 different distros with the config for TOR and keep coming up with the same problem. a) on the page for Debian Unbuntu Instructions under Option #2, after the deb line is put into the /etc/apt/sources.list file b) it then says to run the lines to get the gpg key ie: gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv 886DDD89 and then c)gpg --export A3C4F0F979CAA22CDBA8F512EE8CBC9E886DDD89 | sudo apt-key add - this is where my problem lies. I can not get the 2nd line to work. I keep getting an error say no keys available or this is not a public key. It is the same, no matter which distro I tried on. Obviously, I am unable to go any further to install Tor. I got on IRC and asked in the Tor channel and tried to get help. They tried several different things to check it out and see if they could get it to work. In following there checks, it checked out and they could not understand either why it would not work. Any ideas and/or help appreciated. Thanks. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ -- Michael Gomboc www.viajando.at pgp-id: 0x5D41FDF8 *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ -- Michael Gomboc www.viajando.at pgp-id: 0x5D41FDF8 *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ -- Michael Gomboc www.viajando.at pgp-id: 0x5D41FDF8 *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Paul, I am not savy enough to explain on the ins and outs of tor, etc. But what I can tell you, with both my servers running, I have yet reached my full bandwidth. I read someplace when I was researching on routers, that some routers actually had reduced the amt of bandwidth going thru them. ie: person was paying for 10 mbps and was only getting ( showing ) less than 5mps after going thru the router. I suspect that if your full bandwidth was being used, your system would possibly freeze cause of a burst of speed, etc., there would be no more room for more bandwidth. IMO, i don't think one would really want to be using it to the max. ex: you buy a car and want to see how it runs, so you take it out on the road and open it up as fast as it will go. To get the full usage out of the car, one would have to run it wide open, which of course could cause problems and would be hard on the car if done for any length of time. Also in another message, it was brought up that if a server is turned on and off a number of times and often, the user count of users using your bandwidth would be down until it became stable again. Time wise , if I remember right, is a 24-48 hour period. Jon On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the following line. ExitPolicy reject *:* It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I would say, that traffic even decreased. $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSPBCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=63 $ ls -al (adapted) 384600 9. Mär 21:27 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=102
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Paul Menzel wrote: It is a virtual machine ... Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? 1. On vservers there are many resource limits. Please check: 'cat /proc/user_beancounters'. 2. Have you read 'http://www.webtropia.com/home/faq.html?article=366'? I don't believe that you have reached the traffic limit, but this could be another reason. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Dienstag, den 16.03.2010, 18:51 +0100 schrieb Gitano: Paul Menzel wrote: It is a virtual machine ... Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? 1. On vservers there are many resource limits. Please check: 'cat /proc/user_beancounters'. Xen is used on the server, so I do not have that file. I checked for CPU and RAM usage and enough is available. 2. Have you read 'http://www.webtropia.com/home/faq.html?article=366'? I don't believe that you have reached the traffic limit, but this could be another reason. I knew about it. But I have not come close to that limit yet and traffic is well below that limit. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Question about signing verifying
On 3/13/10, ilter yüksel ilteryuk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I've question about signing especially for signing router-descriptor; Is the router signing-key using to prepare a router's signature with digest algorithm? If so then does an OR sign it's router descriptor with it's signature? Finally can we say right for below sequence? signing-key digest algorithm --- router-signature initial router-descriptor - sign with router-signature --- signed router-descriptor Selamlar İlter, Actually it is descriptor --- digest function | v private key --- RSA engine signature After that how a directory authority verify whether the router descriptor is self-signed? signature | v RSA engine --- recovered digest ?=? digest function --- descriptor ^ | public key (signing-key) To demonstrate, in Java you might do something like: http://pastebin.com/fvtS3Uyv. Regards Oğuz --- You have not experienced Tor documentation until you have read them in the original Klingon *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
