Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Travis Northrup: Yes, it can. The program can spend the processor time to run that extra instruction set. Do we actually need or want that? Would it be worth spending the cpu time in exchange for just a miniscule effort to do it ourselves? Are you really arguing something like 1000 cycles on a modern processor (so, what, a microsecond, tops) vs 5 minutes of human effort? Is this maybe an example of why crypto software UX is almost universally god-awful? Best, - -Gordon M. On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:53:25 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Travis Northrup: This argument (Mbit/s versus GiB/month) reminds me of the old saw about the most useless unit of velocity (furlongs/fortnight instead of m/sec). Mick I know exactly what you mean. Personally, I consider any change to be a convenience modification only. In reality the only current differences are in defining storage rate and traffic rate (1024/1000 respectively) and its defined in bits. From there all conversions are simple math that should be operator responsibility. Why, when the config file can be liberal in what it accepts in the numerator, and in the denominator (seconds, days, weeks, mean months)? Calculating numbers is a job for a computer. Best, - -Gordon M. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays - -- Sent from my thing that sends email. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSm+Y+AAoJED/jpRoe7/ujPRYH/1agvqhrhhk7/uqNr9oEW+Wi A7fJ2Z6Dt/j+b1A9ty05regLN5q+4t9JE5A492j146v8aJEcZoAWU6718ug8n1Kq wzX0t5oWl36UivFr99pVvKTf1YHEQ9BCx4S88bbkUn6IvYFv/z8n4o+Kw2dutYDO Zgl0NGaPrc5IgAglGv6p2Kjc9TON8bkIYJENkbaW58kVEeCad9Sel3i2ZDrC7E2R WJw8E51n472HpbYbCu5L/zuijzjxpYdjI0Nu3KI3Qci9Uozkpgq2N7bo3n2rzYMI ufwSnyqAwQLH1ZCkYhYVbR4uEuNRGP2/sAUXrKdhYVNE6c3MsCY/Zm51nnDzHX4= =GzbJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yes, it can. The program can spend the processor time to run that extra instruction set. Do we actually need or want that? Would it be worth spending the cpu time in exchange for just a miniscule effort to do it ourselves? On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:53:25 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Travis Northrup: This argument (Mbit/s versus GiB/month) reminds me of the old saw about the most useless unit of velocity (furlongs/fortnight instead of m/sec). Mick I know exactly what you mean. Personally, I consider any change to be a convenience modification only. In reality the only current differences are in defining storage rate and traffic rate (1024/1000 respectively) and its defined in bits. From there all conversions are simple math that should be operator responsibility. Why, when the config file can be liberal in what it accepts in the numerator, and in the denominator (seconds, days, weeks, mean months)? Calculating numbers is a job for a computer. Best, - -Gordon M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSlRhVAAoJED/jpRoe7/ujzC0IANGMKvdbnvOO9lebNa81ETo9 6st2Dyt8Cy3qVmWevVT3JP6GZIpLVAk4M5SeFUm3abY2kbphIJfnnKVGYR/B3ggI 5uVTUN5uFIZmePAoMxHh53Y9ss5IYizvFFli3jaeg7iJnYjQl6zeogBCp275YCR0 tbNeZ4BisXzXUDavTm5c23x0d9fo7z7b7i+SMhPs3DanZG3JLPHtTX+aYiBRjRlY hZJE9K6i+cvYEEId24tqo/uymEw8BFeCj5Ws32Gj9fHXSn64JDUaEawmmTXXsfvA DTUGLbRAVfdRDWrQl9JXTZLswMkis5SrrTeoehwo93cjgvl5z7uBa6/rK9WxwzY= =MdoA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlTG/AAoJECJSqAwXZ/cnKcIIALVECDceF/aKsJV+D7nxVaJ8 H6tjAwj3nKqY1/LR8uPg7Z3E4mfuIRi6df/WUMxH1NP0sbFpWz1NY30iOEt9lAb1 fLY+exqmCYBifoNB7e5Gcss2QcqGhoCl6T9HYVoT9QmFZrlZvjr0goBCPQEdYwqC p2wW0zZftzCFKl3jCTtAiYslDvCLbujyYtlVWFqjlQjAuWNMJ0z/7Ntx4kquSzCc vKioMv95oQVT2MZywh5amNYNr/qYiKWYbAzL8FwZm9PMG2MQjZGiLxRpmwzmUrp6 HwSGjATO4dOSrRfPWsAW/XwJuioJbILdJUIrs9bXYubN9cX8BSp4PgtMziFDfAw= =BeA7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Roger Dingledine: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 02:29:04PM -0800, Gordon Morehouse wrote: Lunar: Gordon Morehouse: Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config file? That would be #9214 [1], implemented by CharlieB, shipped since tor 0.2.5.1-alpha. [1] https://bugs.torproject.org/9214 Good, this is the most sensical behavior to the widest array of people who type things into config files Actually, this is alas not the case. We now support gbits (127) and gbytes (130) in the torrc file, but we do not support gib. Or I think more correctly, we say gbytes for what you want us to call gibs, and if you want to say a billion bytes, you need to type all the zeros. I learned about the 'gib, kib' etc in wikipedia a while back - it'd be best if the config file were extremely liberal in accepting what people type, IMO. Best, - -Gordon M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSk5cgAAoJED/jpRoe7/ujt8IH/2ipNB52tIcxQtF9U7bw+ThN aYim2upAF4bluDcsgYia29FgtwKW8LkFwlBH06qG0DVcifprlkfzR3iZGIfTOGE2 m1cfLkEqRvF7nF5H9ajfIwBnvgrf3stmIBMsjMhFwo1iaRWoD/qPtd14wKVWk+xH skK48fNcCI0nCep0rBHKwC593QUVv++soNi+aLhuOOGXR0raA/hVt/nms0D4v/pZ FEdsJfK8BOxrS43JpuQVR8AbUdbnJGs1HQ35T3HmyRoMdDj2ulQ8G9fYIG0w7u2P cXM9+5BhfMx5M2y1YI+3t9WFBJhZO3Kwzz2X/OSOwt1vfWHcwQ1KVBrRRgGg79A= =j66M -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Gordon Morehouse gor...@morehouse.me wrote: Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the [1] https://bugs.torproject.org/9214 We now support gbits (127) and gbytes (130) in the torrc file, but we do not support gib. Or I think more correctly, we say gbytes for what you want us to call gibs, and if you want to say a billion bytes, you need to type all the zeros. I learned about the 'gib, kib' etc in wikipedia a while back - it'd be best if the config file were extremely liberal in accepting what people type, IMO. No. This kind of lazy acceptance is exactly why rockets crash, and rockets crashing are why one must use proper terms. 'gib, kib' are not cased correctly, thus people have no idea what you explicitly mean. They might presume your lazy casing means 'Gib, KiB' but then your rocket might crash. Reference and enforcement is the proper cure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix The little table in the upper right covers the decimal and binary prefixes and their long names. It should be documented as such and nothing else should be accepted. As far as units of bit and byte... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1541-2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_8-13 With the more international community seemingly lately moving the abbreviation for a bit from 'b' to 'bit'. And defining octet 'o' as the grouping of eight bits (perhaps still leaving the byte somewhat undecided as to its width in bits, and conflicting in abbreviation 'B' with the older and more cross-disciplined Bel.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This argument (Mbit/s versus GiB/month) reminds me of the old saw about the most useless unit of velocity (furlongs/fortnight instead of m/sec). Mick I know exactly what you mean. Personally, I consider any change to be a convenience modification only. In reality the only current differences are in defining storage rate and traffic rate (1024/1000 respectively) and its defined in bits. From there all conversions are simple math that should be operator responsibility. Regards, Travis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSk/AmAAoJECJSqAwXZ/cnZBcH/2RbiydXZwTk5vwhOSfdG9wB nqvExUaqTUIsrfgc406TxoU01gZNTCc5Qo6aKeNCHthM/z8yQDW8mSG6Cxu1LuPL vULJ8U44quVy0i0K9hYoD5C6H1oHl7HqiqH0iAffAiCIEbPAVyycDm2+vHLFv0o2 a9MWd4a68ACA5Z5kRXlpfpxp0OUitgx9XvaT3C+bKWex5xSnHJabl/C9MFSSJXEj 6zKWEMh9QtK/BbYBMEb2Je/JzNtURFcqhWxGIqS326zBkrWEJ/dydcjOU5Chk/lD 9jPUHMwO7WvwtYA8vqPraCMX+aHXLkPvvfDmc8Ng66p08swznj8YKNfC5G+OB7I= =ay2f -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config file? Because KB/sec would be rejected as not conforming to either SI or IEC prefix specs. Therefore the above proposed 'AND' would fail ;) ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:50:03 +, grarpamp wrote: Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config file? Because KB/sec would be rejected as not conforming to either SI or IEC prefix specs. Why so? The SI prefix spec only specifies that K means 1000, it does not limit the base units. (And neither bytes not bits are SI units.) Andreas -- Totally trivial. Famous last words. From: Linus Torvalds torvalds@*.org 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] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
Gordon Morehouse: Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config file? That would be #9214 [1], implemented by CharlieB, shipped since tor 0.2.5.1-alpha. [1] https://bugs.torproject.org/9214 -- Lunar lu...@torproject.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Lunar: Gordon Morehouse: Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config file? That would be #9214 [1], implemented by CharlieB, shipped since tor 0.2.5.1-alpha. [1] https://bugs.torproject.org/9214 Good, this is the most sensical behavior to the widest array of people who type things into config files, and the ability to type GiB/mo and have it mean a line rate will be nice for those of us who, thank you very much, do make up an important part of the peanut gallery on VPS providers. Centralization is death. I'm glad we're here. Best, - -Gordon M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSkSwvAAoJED/jpRoe7/ujxvYIALDaDKZKA8vWXh9aJZycZjNc 3qHQVMwn96Nocl6vmFqhbB2VvpgfAkRb5+MPpZjX5UeXZ4kLcoQh14SsXXvcC2xc HUi8/IF5a1eYUtsOGAz/+Rde0Xdhvkbf3LG7iJGoY0kX94GI4LG04uVN3j8NsKQv 2XUy3z7ifkSj+AAHwdDtVDP3eX7XZ0Nogo+x0q18Y+ZhW6JAtTncPQvojalGpNYw qbgVLOKvzJPX8LSokfE6NNR/asjioz5K27ueodrjnlps9s3VrEDc5Xo+tush1nqm zEd0TVZlS20xIqFTFiqqOoucM8jH35XfSv4EUSoLm5yUPwadMJND/Xm+L5wl62U= =q9T8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 krishna e bera: On 13-11-18 07:28 PM, grarpamp wrote: A proper IEC gibibyte = GiB = 2^30 = 1024^3 = 1073741824 for data storage, ram (binary bit handling) A proper SI gigabyte = GB = 1E9 = 1000^3 = 10 for data transmission (packet counting, rocketships) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8 http://www.swedeteam.com/kibi/ Thugh they may break your broken tradition, there are current standards now, please use them. The tradition may be broken but it has roots, just as feet and inches and acres came from real human practices. Some of us grew up with that stuff and it is going to be a pain to unlearn, for example, that a KB is 1024 bytes. Indeed this is the first i heard that anyone changed the definitions. Anyway, as long as Tor docs are clear what definitions are being used i think we can all get along fine. Suggest we add reference URLs to Tor docs. Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config file? Best, - -Gordon M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSj5FKAAoJED/jpRoe7/ujtaIIAJwXML8D3JVW9t3+dHkjWZaY +KL1sPAsJqcurlISkm2W0Mlw1wrmMAiwoK5ZfJ9kyfxBD4pA/8AOocDpLgqUCzwi IREGIkzMLLOgJYBizPb5g5I9KWuC7gpWg5EXUuOpuHAfBvuLD6faMQ+G+l4D0yRk Ik7D/Hw5K4aOm2/U8j1n/3FASkKLJa9k+5Y1rsLM4UaRkLoQunRURnWy31Ui4mab bUXIQi+OWkhCRUOeX004BRVRxj5/cBQDvaM1qcpvH6R0Kj9YI2Tjp8XumrQgdzCY k+aM8Av+agvSzQVQCn67lFbD8u4qnzDqDsru+0FUMdQlS/UQQo4emWAVtT8vGUQ= =+lx/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On 13-11-18 07:28 PM, grarpamp wrote: A proper IEC gibibyte = GiB = 2^30 = 1024^3 = 1073741824 for data storage, ram (binary bit handling) A proper SI gigabyte = GB = 1E9 = 1000^3 = 10 for data transmission (packet counting, rocketships) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8 http://www.swedeteam.com/kibi/ Thugh they may break your broken tradition, there are current standards now, please use them. The tradition may be broken but it has roots, just as feet and inches and acres came from real human practices. Some of us grew up with that stuff and it is going to be a pain to unlearn, for example, that a KB is 1024 bytes. Indeed this is the first i heard that anyone changed the definitions. Anyway, as long as Tor docs are clear what definitions are being used i think we can all get along fine. Suggest we add reference URLs to Tor docs. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:26:32 +, Roger Dingledine wrote: ... I understand your perspective, but Tor is an overlay application just like bittorrent. Tor moves bytes around. It happens that it moves the bytes over the network, Is there anything nowadays that does move data on networks in finer grain than bytes? Andreas -- Totally trivial. Famous last words. From: Linus Torvalds torvalds@*.org 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] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:14:15 +, grarpamp wrote: ... People, can we please mind using the proper units. How is 'bytes' improper when that is the basic transfer unit of TCP/IP, and half of the underlying protocols? The only ones who really don't care about bytes are the layer 1 guys. I know Tor doesn't make it easy because Tor itself incorrectly uses Bytes. But Tor is a network application, and real network apps are measured in 'bits per second', So, neither scp nor wget are real network applications? Nor ftp, nor firefox? Andreas -- Totally trivial. Famous last words. From: Linus Torvalds torvalds@*.org 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
[tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Eric van der Vlist v...@dyomedea.com wrote: Without bandwidth limitation that's true. OTH, I currently consume only ~ 50 Gbits/month and the limit is 500 Gbits. Would a relay limited to let's say 200 or 300 Gbits/month still be useful for the community? People, can we please mind using the proper units. I know Tor doesn't make it easy because Tor itself incorrectly uses Bytes. But Tor is a network application, and real network apps are measured in 'bits per second', not 'bytes transferred off disk', even if the latter is what silly hosters sell by... mostly due to their presumed need to tie in with their typical customers supposed Apache access_logs. But believe me, what hosters really care about is their upstream bill in bps rate, they're just converting that for access_log presentation to you. Your further mixing of 'giga bits per month' doesn't help *at all*. Please try to use 'bits per second' as the common denominator on this (network application) list. BTW, Gandi is historically a fairly progressive company. The right approach could have some good wins there. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Proper bandwidth units [was: Exit nodes on Gandi]
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:14:15AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: People, can we please mind using the proper units. I know Tor doesn't make it easy because Tor itself incorrectly uses Bytes. But Tor is a network application, and real network apps are measured in 'bits per second' I understand your perspective, but Tor is an overlay application just like bittorrent. Tor moves bytes around. It happens that it moves the bytes over the network, so I can see why you would call it a network application. But by your definition I claim it is not. :) That said, yes, always say the whole unit. Do not assume that anybody knows what you mean when you say 'b'. No matter what you mean, there will always be somebody who is certain of what you mean yet is wrong. --Roger ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
