Re: [tor-relays] experiences with debian tor 0.2.8.6 package from deb.torproject.org

[tor relay]

> On August 3, 2016 at 11:51 PM Green Dream  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I didn't understand that your daemon didn't restart after the 
> upgrade. I ran through the upgrade on 2 relays, and apt started the service 
> post-upgrade on both.
> 
> 
> 

Since it is reproducible in my case as well I assume you do _not_ have the 
following constellation:

tor.service is disabled and stopped (I don't use the default instance)

tor@1 mailto:tor@1 .service is enabled and running

tor@2.service mailto:tor@2.service is enabled and running
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[Roger Dingledine]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:29:01PM +0200, t...@as250.net wrote:
> Absolutely. Most of the infrastructure we provide on that basis and it
> is ok! The reason for running that exit node was that we believed it
> would contribute towards a positive impact in many peoples lives.

Thanks for contributing while you did!

I'm remembering way back when I would mail all the people running relays
to see if they needed anything. Then there was the phase where we got
some funding for Moritz to do relay operator advocacy and coordination:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/turning-funding-more-exit-relays
and that push also led to some cool sites like
https://compass.torproject.org/

Among all the things that we need to do next, I think getting a relay
advocate / coordinator in place would sure be useful. I think there are
so many things that we need, though, that it's going to be a while yet
before we get such a person in place.

In the mean time, hang tight everybody, and let's continue to have a
community who helps each other, and thanks all for your contributions.

--Roger

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] Tor relay on pfSense

[Edwin Garzón]

Hello
you have an updated tutorial for  "Set Up Tor relay on pfSense 2.3.2"
Thanks
Edwin
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] experiences with debian tor 0.2.8.6 package from deb.torproject.org

[Green Dream]

Sorry, I didn't understand that your daemon didn't restart after the
upgrade. I ran through the upgrade on 2 relays, and apt started the service
post-upgrade on both.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] experiences with debian tor 0.2.8.6 package from deb.torproject.org

[tor relay]

> On August 3, 2016 at 11:04 PM Green Dream  wrote:
> 
> 
> > When upgrading, all running tor instances are stopped (not restarted, 
> as expected)
> 
> > syslog shows:
> 
> > Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new connections, and will shut 
> down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit now.
> 
> > Clean shutdown finished. Exiting.
> 
> > (problem is reproducible)
> 
> 
> I just had the same experience upgrading my relays, but I think this is 
> to be expected? New connections are blocked and there's 30 seconds to give 
> existing connections a chance to gracefully complete. The daemon is then 
> stopped while the packages upgrade, then it's restarted. I think it's been 
> handled like that for a while, although my memory is a little fuzzy since I 
> hadn't upgraded in the last 6 months.
> 

Well if your tor instance started again automatically after the upgrade then 
you didn't experience the same problem as I did, because it did NOT restart it 
simply stopped without starting again at all.

I expected it to restart (as it did during previous updates).
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] experiences with debian tor 0.2.8.6 package from deb.torproject.org

[Green Dream]

> When upgrading, all running tor instances are stopped (not restarted, as
expected)

> syslog shows:

> Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new connections, and will shut down
in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit now.

> Clean shutdown finished. Exiting.

> (problem is reproducible)


I just had the same experience upgrading my relays, but I think this is to
be expected? New connections are blocked and there's 30 seconds to give
existing connections a chance to gracefully complete. The daemon is then
stopped while the packages upgrade, then it's restarted. I think it's been
handled like that for a while, although my memory is a little fuzzy since I
hadn't upgraded in the last 6 months.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] experiences with debian tor 0.2.8.6 package from deb.torproject.org

[tor relay]

Hi,

I'm running a relay on debian jessie using packages from deb.torproject.org.

I want to share the problems I had so others are aware of them when upgrading 
their relays.

While upgrading from 0.2.7.6 to 0.2.8.6 via apt-get, I did a

tail -f syslog

to make sure I notice problems during the upgrade. (I expected a simple restart 
of all running tor instances)

I use debian's multi instance systemd service file.

When upgrading, all running tor instances are stopped (not restarted, as 
expected)

syslog shows:

Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new connections, and will shut down in 30 
seconds. Interrupt again to exit now.

Clean shutdown finished. Exiting.


(problem is reproducible)


Side note (unrelated to the upgrade but also relevant for the debian tor 
package from deb.torproject.org repo):

Stopping the default instance stops all instances due to

/lib/systemd/system/tor@.service:

[...]

PartOf=tor.service
ReloadPropagatedFrom=tor.service


How about using the same way as the RPM maintainer does - so one can enable the 
default instance without affecting all others?

PartOf=tor-master.service
ReloadPropagatedFrom=tor-master.service
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Got a visit from the police this morning..

[Stig Atle Steffensen]

The hoster is:
https://tranquillity.se/

The sysadmin there did not tell me to shut it down, he did encourage me to 
continue,
but I've decided to turn it into a middlenode for the resons mentioned earlier.

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:50:25PM +0200, simon wrote:
> On 01.08.2016 08:15, stig atle steffensen wrote:
> > I decided today to turn the node into a non-exit node this morning.
> > The stress of not knowing if something will happen again is too much for
> > me to go around thinking about.
> What hoster did you use? You mentioned the server being located in sweden.
> 
> Might put a new exit there, can't have police visits lead to lower exit
> capacity. I understand you don't want to run it yourself anymore though.
> ___
> 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

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[I]

...t-shirts.[ sotto voce ]



___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[tor]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:31:34 +0200
Andreas Krey  wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:40:03 +, t...@as250.net wrote:
> ...
> > our support. Just to make it clear: "appreciate" in this context
> > doesn't mean funding. All those years we didn't get as much as a
> > "thank you!" from anyone.
> 
> Operating tor nodes is - like operating any
> invisible infrastructure - inherently thankless.

Absolutely. Most of the infrastructure we provide on that basis and it
is ok! The reason for running that exit node was that we believed it
would contribute towards a positive impact in many peoples lives.

The "appreciation" part was rather directed to those individuals who
know me/us personally and only to them. You know who you are.
No bad feelings though! :-)

> ...
> > How's that for a "change in strategy"?
> 
> Well, sad. So long, and thanks for the exit bandwith past.

It surely was a fun time. Including the abuse-report handling.

In the end however, it is no longer appropriate for us to
contribute to the Tor Project so we decided that we have no 
reasonable choice left, but to discontinue the service.

Cheers.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[NotRandom Someone]

I think that the purpose was not being famous or recognized but just having
more kindness.
The fact is that a lot of Tor users don't even know which relay they are
using and how to get the informations of the exit relay they're using,
meaning that they will  actually never thank anyone of running exit or
middle relay...

Hoping something is not good for the mind, if you don't, and receive some
"thank you" it will be a great gift.

I'm running a middle relay, and I know that noone will thank me, and I
don't care because thank to us, people will use our relay to have
internet-informations without censorship or relaying censitive informations
from countries where dictature is in place for exemple...

On 3 Aug 2016 14:39, "Tristan"  wrote:

> If you were running relays just to get recognized, you were probably doing
> it did the wrong reason.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [tor-relays] is explicit DirPort needed anymore under Tor 0.2.8.6?

[Tristan]

I'd like to peep in here and say that Orbot (Tor on Android) is still using
version 2.7.5. Until someone updates the app to 2.8.6, those users will
still need a DirPort.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[Tristan]

If you were running relays just to get recognized, you were probably doing
it did the wrong reason.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[Andreas Krey]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:40:03 +, t...@as250.net wrote:
...
> our support. Just to make it clear: "appreciate" in this context
> doesn't mean funding. All those yearswe didn't get as much as a "thank
> you!" from anyone.

Operating tor nodes is - like operating any
invisible infrastructure - inherently thankless.

...
> How's that for a "change in strategy"?

Well, sad. So long, and thanks
for the exit bandwith past.

Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Exit relay funding

[tor]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:51:12 +0100
Elrippo  wrote:

> Why are you then complaining if you do not accept money for running
> your relays?!

Where do you see any complaining? I guess you misunderstood my mail.

If other people are getting support in keeping their relays up and
running, that's fine and I am quite happy for them. I have re-read my
mail multiple times and can't fathom how one could interpret that mail
as "complaining". It merely states that - although we don't need any
funding for operational expenses - donations for upgrades are more than
welcome.

> I personally do not have any problems with contributing, you earn my
> full respect, but I do have problems with relay operators who are
> complaining about others getting funded.

Where did I do that? Why would I possibly complain about anyone funding
other relays? This makes no sense. It's good for the network if that
happens and allows diversity.

> Maybe a change in your strategy would make the life of your precious
> and fast relays a bit easier...

I have shut down our "precious and fast relays" recently as we
decided unanimously that the tor-community does not need or appreciate
our support. Just to make it clear: "appreciate" in this context
doesn't mean funding. All those yearswe didn't get as much as a "thank
you!" from anyone.
The >500mbit/s of bandwidth from our diversely peered network which we
continuously shoveled into the tor network for the past years can now be
used for more worthwhile projects.

How's that for a "change in strategy"?

Cheers.

p.s. sorry for the delayed reply. I just peek into the folder with this
list every now and then, due to the high volume and bad SNR.
As I don't have any further interest in the tor project I'll be also
unsubscribing shortly. So long and thanks for all the fish!
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] is explicit DirPort needed anymore under Tor 0.2.8.6?

[Toralf Förster]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 08/03/2016 02:13 AM, Green Dream wrote:
> With this new behavior, is there any reason to keep an open DirPort on
> our relays?
Yes, it is a convenient way to tell others to fetch a HTML document from the 
Tor exit ip address (eg in http://5.9.158.75/

- -- 
Toralf
PGP: C4EACDDE 0076E94E, OTR: 420E74C8 30246EE7
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlehkvIACgkQxOrN3gB26U4+ogD/XWHq5lHhhOUEigVOzhPQ0mRq
40Dq/BfPFT4aG6rB5mkA/2XI8bw1E0SHPZtD8RoHb3LWkH7nz1S2SHf5FBI5/+55
=DvaQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays