Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread teor 

> On 16 Sep 2016, at 07:58, Ralph Seichter  wrote:
> 
> I have made some measurements. Downloading large files through Tor did
> not appear to show significant differences between both nodes, which
> could mean that Tor clients are either capped in general or the circuits
> were overall not fast enough to make my nodes reach their limits.
> 
> I also tried several iperf3 bandwidth measurements between the two Tor
> nodes and a third server which I know to be reliably fast. My Tor node
> #1 averaged 697 Mbits/sec, and #2 averaged 505 Mbits/sec -- while Tor
> was running on both nodes. I tried this with both IPv4 and IPv6, the
> latter being slightly faster.
> 
> It would appear that even though #2 has less bandwidth than #1, the
> available bandwidth of #2 is more than 10 times the bandwidth utilized
> by Tor on this machine. I still don't understand why TorRelay02HORUS is
> just limping along.

A few things that affect consensus weight happen at random:
* client usage, which affects observed bandwidth, which limits consensus weight,
* the timing and pairing of bandwidth authority measurement, which limits 
consensus weight,

It's possible that by chance, 02 got a bad measurement a week ago, and 01 got a 
good one.
Give it a few more weeks, and see if the measurements even out.

Tim

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

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org








signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Seichter 
I have made some measurements. Downloading large files through Tor did
not appear to show significant differences between both nodes, which
could mean that Tor clients are either capped in general or the circuits
were overall not fast enough to make my nodes reach their limits.

I also tried several iperf3 bandwidth measurements between the two Tor
nodes and a third server which I know to be reliably fast. My Tor node
#1 averaged 697 Mbits/sec, and #2 averaged 505 Mbits/sec -- while Tor
was running on both nodes. I tried this with both IPv4 and IPv6, the
latter being slightly faster.

It would appear that even though #2 has less bandwidth than #1, the
available bandwidth of #2 is more than 10 times the bandwidth utilized
by Tor on this machine. I still don't understand why TorRelay02HORUS is
just limping along.

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

Re: [tor-relays] Guard/Middle/Exit Hosting

2016-09-15 Thread Tristan 
No idea. This is the first promo code I've used.

On Sep 15, 2016 3:54 PM, "Jason Jung"  wrote:

> Maybe we are limited to only one promo code of that nature?  I used
> DIVEIN10 about two years ago and using LOWENDBOX says "Sorry, this promo
> cannot be applied to your account. Most promos are valid for new
> customers only."
>
> Tristan:
> > It's in the billing settings after you log in.
> >
> > On Sep 15, 2016 3:28 PM, "Ralph Seichter" 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 15.09.16 21:43, Markus Koch wrote:
> >>
> >>> DigitalOcean has a new Promo: $15 free aka 3 months free droplet.
> >>
> >> I have tried creating an additional Droplet, but it seems that promo
> codes
> >> cannot be entered anywhere in this process. Probably only when
> registering
> >> a new customer account, I suppose?
> >>
> >> -Ralph
> >> ___
> >> 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
> >
>
> --
> Jason Jung
> 7942 B145 5E45 1D53 37C8  1204 8DA4 A1DB CBE6 35AE
> ___
> 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] Guard/Middle/Exit Hosting

2016-09-15 Thread Jason Jung 
Maybe we are limited to only one promo code of that nature?  I used
DIVEIN10 about two years ago and using LOWENDBOX says "Sorry, this promo
cannot be applied to your account. Most promos are valid for new
customers only."

Tristan:
> It's in the billing settings after you log in.
> 
> On Sep 15, 2016 3:28 PM, "Ralph Seichter"  wrote:
> 
>> On 15.09.16 21:43, Markus Koch wrote:
>>
>>> DigitalOcean has a new Promo: $15 free aka 3 months free droplet.
>>
>> I have tried creating an additional Droplet, but it seems that promo codes
>> cannot be entered anywhere in this process. Probably only when registering
>> a new customer account, I suppose?
>>
>> -Ralph
>> ___
>> 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
> 

-- 
Jason Jung
7942 B145 5E45 1D53 37C8  1204 8DA4 A1DB CBE6 35AE
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Guard/Middle/Exit Hosting

2016-09-15 Thread Jason Jung 
That code only works with new registrations. 

On September 15, 2016 3:28:19 PM CDT, Ralph Seichter 
 wrote:
>On 15.09.16 21:43, Markus Koch wrote:
>
>> DigitalOcean has a new Promo: $15 free aka 3 months free droplet.
>
>I have tried creating an additional Droplet, but it seems that promo
>codes
>cannot be entered anywhere in this process. Probably only when
>registering
>a new customer account, I suppose?
>
>-Ralph
>___
>tor-relays mailing list
>tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
>https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Jason Jung
7942 B145 5E45 1D53 37C8 1204 8DA4 A1DB CBE6 35AE
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Guard/Middle/Exit Hosting

2016-09-15 Thread Tristan 
Thanks! Going on 2 months with an exit node. I had to disable SSH after
about a month, but that's the only complaint I've gotten.

On Sep 15, 2016 2:43 PM, "Markus Koch"  wrote:

Just 2 let you know, DigitalOcean has a new Promo: $15 free aka 3
months free droplet.

Guard/Middle is no problem at all. My exits have been kicked after
around 4 months (too many abuse mails :( )

Promocode: LOWENDBOX

https://lowendbox.com/blog/september-hosting-vps-coupon-round-up/

I do not get any money from it, just to let you know, DigitalOcean is
already big in the Tor network but its free money :)

Markus
___
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

[tor-relays] Guard/Middle/Exit Hosting

2016-09-15 Thread Markus Koch 
Just 2 let you know, DigitalOcean has a new Promo: $15 free aka 3
months free droplet.

Guard/Middle is no problem at all. My exits have been kicked after
around 4 months (too many abuse mails :( )

Promocode: LOWENDBOX

https://lowendbox.com/blog/september-hosting-vps-coupon-round-up/

I do not get any money from it, just to let you know, DigitalOcean is
already big in the Tor network but its free money :)

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

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Seichter 
On 15.09.16 21:21, Green Dream wrote:

> The Advertised Bandwidth is is significantly lower on TorRelay02HORUS
> too.

Indeed, even though bandwitdh settings are identical on both nodes:

  BandwidthRate 96 MBytes
  BandwidthBurst 112 MBytes

Arm shows me that node #1 has upload/download of around 600 Mb/s right
now, node #2 only around 35 Mb/s. I'll try the measurement you suggested
later, this will require some preparation first.

> From a quick glance, it seems that TorRelay02HORUS just isn't
> providing the same bandwidth as TorRelay01HORUS. There could be many
> reasons for this, including hardware, other nodes on the same network
> rack at your host, upstream bandwidth for the datacenter, peering
> between the node and the bandwidth authorities, etc.

I've alread checked memory and CPU, both nodes have ample capacities to
spare in this regard. Maybe external factors are involved, like you have
mentioned. I'll dig into this deeper. Looking at the graphs for #2, the
spikes early in the life cycle surprise me most. Data throughput was much
higher, and for a brief period the guard flag seems to have been awarded
as well.

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

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Green Dream 
The Advertised Bandwidth is is significantly lower on TorRelay02HORUS
too. Let me quote teor from another recent thread, I think the same
info is helpful here:

-- begin quote --

Your relay reports a bandwidth based on the amount of traffic it has
sustained in any 10 second period over the past day.
You can also set a maximum advertised bandwidth on your relay. (Don't
do this if you're trying to pick up more traffic.)
Five bandwidth authorities measure each relay each week, and report
how fast it is.
Each of these factors can restrict the amount of bandwidth that the
network assigns to your relay.

Here's one way of testing what your relay is capable of:

Run a Tor client as close to your relay as possible:
tor DataDirectory /tmp/tor.$$ SOCKSPort [IPv4:]1 EntryNodes your-relay-name

Then download a large file using port 1 as a socks proxy.

That will give you some idea of how much traffic your relay can
sustain, but it's worth noting that each client is limited to about 1
Mbps (I think - I can't find the manual page entry).

-- end quote --

From a quick glance, it seems that TorRelay02HORUS just isn't
providing the same bandwidth as TorRelay01HORUS. There could be many
reasons for this, including hardware, other nodes on the same network
rack at your host, upstream bandwidth for the datacenter, peering
between the node and the bandwidth authorities, etc.

None of this is unusual. As I have said many times, when spinning up
new relays, I often find it helpful to bring up many at the same time
(ideally using automation like Ansible), find which ones perform best,
keep those and tear down the others.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Seichter 
On 15.09.16 20:57, Roman Mamedov wrote:

> You should post both fingerprint or even just Atlas links directly,
> maybe someone will have more ideas on why this could happen.

1) 
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0C3D5E19E3C75B505C8ACD26F89DCA2DF970553E
2) 
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/790910748A9B5F0EB455273FF42A0DFA3E7ACDD3

I'm not an expert, but #2 sure looks weird, from the graphs alone. Why
the consensus weight is approx. 1/30 of #1's value I cannot understand
either.

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

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Roman Mamedov 
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:34:54 +0200
Ralph Seichter  wrote:

> On 15.09.16 19:43, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> 
> > It is normal to run multiple nodes in one family and have most or all
> > of them get the Guard flag.
> 
> I don't see this happen. I would think that weeks of uninterrupted
> uptime should mean both nodes qualify, but only one has a guard flag.
> The nodes are on separate machines, with IP addresses dissimilar enough
> for me not to expect issues based on these.

You should post both fingerprint or even just Atlas links directly, maybe
someone will have more ideas on why this could happen. One possibility is if
you're perhaps on the lower brink of the Guard bandwidth requirements, and one
qualifies by chance, while the other doesn't.

-- 
With respect,
Roman


pgpyNefQGuiYN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Seichter 
On 15.09.16 19:43, Roman Mamedov wrote:

> It is normal to run multiple nodes in one family and have most or all
> of them get the Guard flag.

I don't see this happen. I would think that weeks of uninterrupted
uptime should mean both nodes qualify, but only one has a guard flag.
The nodes are on separate machines, with IP addresses dissimilar enough
for me not to expect issues based on these.

-Ralph

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

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Roman Mamedov 
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:39:07 +0200
Ralph Seichter  wrote:

> On 15.09.2016 18:40, Markus Koch wrote:
> 
> > 100%  normal. Welcome to tor.
> > No, no clue why ;)
> 
> I was contemplating possible security considerations behind this. One
> particular person or organization responsible for the administration of
> multiple guards, when guards are sensitive because users connect to them
> directly... That sort of thing.
> 
> The alternative might be messed up node configurations, so I thought I'd
> better ask. ;-)

It is normal to run multiple nodes in one family and have most or all of them
get the Guard flag. I don't see why two specifically must be any special
(unless you mean both on the same IP?).

-- 
With respect,
Roman


pgpCScDKiAD3h.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Seichter 
On 15.09.2016 18:40, Markus Koch wrote:

> 100%  normal. Welcome to tor.
> No, no clue why ;)

I was contemplating possible security considerations behind this. One
particular person or organization responsible for the administration of
multiple guards, when guards are sensitive because users connect to them
directly... That sort of thing.

The alternative might be messed up node configurations, so I thought I'd
better ask. ;-)

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

Re: [tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Markus Koch 
100%  normal. Welcome to tor.
No, no clue why ;)

Markus

Sent from my iPad

> On 15 Sep 2016, at 18:12, Ralph Seichter  wrote:
> 
> When running two non-exit nodes, configured as a single family with no
> other members, and using identical bandwidth settings, is it to be
> expected that only one of the nodes ever obtains the guard flag? The
> node uptimes are pretty much the same as well, but consensus weight
> differs significantly. I don't really understand why that is, given
> what I read about node life cycles.
> 
> -Ralph
> ___
> 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

[tor-relays] Node families and guard flags

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Seichter 
When running two non-exit nodes, configured as a single family with no
other members, and using identical bandwidth settings, is it to be
expected that only one of the nodes ever obtains the guard flag? The
node uptimes are pretty much the same as well, but consensus weight
differs significantly. I don't really understand why that is, given
what I read about node life cycles.

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

Re: [tor-relays] list of bridges

2016-09-15 Thread Ivan Markin 
Ivan Semenov:
> Hello, can I get some vanilla bridges pls

Go to https://bridges.torproject.org/ and select 'none' as Pluggable
Transport. Voila.

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

[tor-relays] list of bridges

2016-09-15 Thread Ivan Semenov 
Hello, can I get some vanilla bridges pls
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays