-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Richard Budd:
> I've been following your Pi thread, and up until yesterday I've
> haven't seen any problems at all on mine. Of course it's only
> running 2 meg bandwidth total. So I thought that might be the
> difference.
Yes, I have 3Mbps outbound
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Roger Dingledine:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:30:33PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
>> On 13-08-29 10:35 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
>>> What on earth is causing so many circuit creation requests in
>>> such a short timespan?
[snip]
> As for the ci
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:58:12 -0700
Andy Isaacson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Pascal wrote:
> > http://torstatus.blutmagie.de indicates that only 21.4% of Tor nodes
> > are exit nodes. Are we wasting this precious resource by running
> > non-exit traffic through these nodes
On 8/31/13, t...@t-3.net wrote:
> This thread did go goofy and bad (and off-topic, given the subject in
> the emails). It seems clear that there are important reasons Tor could
> never begin examining/taking direct responsibility for/filtering the
> content that flows through it (as opposed with d
On 31.08.2013 21:07, mick wrote:
> I don't normally expose those stats to the world. Indeed I'd guess a
> few other people who collect such stats don't either. Now, whilst these
> stats (along with those from others who respond) might help
> investigations of the impact of whatever is causing the r
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:06:58AM +, AFO Server Operator wrote:
> I search for a option to restart my TOR relays after the TOR process did
> crash on them? Im running TOR alpha on Debian
Why does it crash?
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorFAQ#MyTorkeepscrashing.
--Roger
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:30:33PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
> On 13-08-29 10:35 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
> > What on earth is causing so many circuit creation requests in such a
> > short timespan?
>
> One possibility, if i recall correctly, is that the Tor that comes with
> the PirateBrows
I've been following your Pi thread, and up until yesterday I've haven't
seen any problems at all on mine. Of course it's only running 2 meg
bandwidth total. So I thought that might be the difference.
Then last night my router (Asus Asus RT-N66U running Shibby Tomato) became
very sluggish. Log showe
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:30:41 +0100
mick allegedly wrote:
> Here you go:
>
> https://pipe.rlogin.net/munin/network-month.html
>
etc
U. I've just had a (paranoid?) thought after reading the recent post
from Gordon Morehouse about DDOS.
I don't normally expose those stats to the world.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Richard Budd:
> I'm seeing the same on all 5 of my non-exit nodes, they are spread
> around the US and EU. It seems that they all are running at close
> to max bandwith for the last several days also.
My guess is whoever is running the DDOS[1] figur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
krishna e bera:
> On 13-08-29 10:35 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
>> What on earth is causing so many circuit creation requests in
>> such a short timespan?
>
> One possibility, if i recall correctly, is that the Tor that comes
> with the PirateBrowse
I'm seeing the same on all 5 of my non-exit nodes, they are spread around
the US and EU.
It seems that they all are running at close to max bandwith for the last
several days also.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-08-30 20:39, Yoriz wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Aug 29 23:1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Andreas Krey:
>> My main question: How do circuit creation requests on one's Tor
>> relay cause load on one's network infrastructure? Is it DNS
>> requests? Is it TCP connection state entries? It's not
>> bandwidth, we observed that above, and my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
The friend was upgrading from Tor 0.2.3.x to Tor 0.2.4.16-rc. I do
not know whether he used a tarball but I think it likely he used the
Tor 'experimental' repos as his VPS is Debian-family, and he said "I
couldn't keep the old config"; thus debconf
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:25:54 -0700
Mike Perry allegedly wrote:
> To try to get to the bottom of the recent influx of clients to the Tor
> network, it might be useful to compare load characteristics since 8/19
> for nodes with different types of flags.
>
> People with Munin setups: it would be es
On 2013-08-30 20:39, Yoriz wrote:
[..]
> Aug 29 23:19:59.000 [warn] Received http status code 504 ("Gateway
> Time-out") from server '154.x.x.x:80' while fetching
> "/tor/server/d/54BDF368367470FCBF015...067.z". I'll try again soon.
> Aug 30 00:14:52.000 [warn] http status 504 ("Gateway Time-out")
31.08.2013 18:32, Pascal:
> http://torstatus.blutmagie.de indicates that only 21.4% of Tor nodes are
> exit nodes. Are we wasting this precious resource by running non-exit
> traffic through these nodes?
>
Hi,
whenever or not these numbers are accurate or not, yes exit nodes
transport all Tor r
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Pascal wrote:
> http://torstatus.blutmagie.de indicates that only 21.4% of Tor nodes
> are exit nodes. Are we wasting this precious resource by running
> non-exit traffic through these nodes?
More important than "what percent of nodes are exits" is: what
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013, at 05:32 PM, Pascal wrote:
> http://torstatus.blutmagie.de indicates that only 21.4% of Tor nodes are
> exit nodes. Are we wasting this precious resource by running non-exit
> traffic through these nodes?
>
> -Pascal
No. The non-exit traffic masks which relay the exit traf
http://torstatus.blutmagie.de indicates that only 21.4% of Tor nodes are
exit nodes. Are we wasting this precious resource by running non-exit
traffic through these nodes?
-Pascal
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://li
This thread did go goofy and bad (and off-topic, given the subject in
the emails). It seems clear that there are important reasons Tor could
never begin examining/taking direct responsibility for/filtering the
content that flows through it (as opposed with disallowing specific
ports, which is d
On 08/30/2013 08:05 PM, Andrea Shepard wrote:
[snip]
If I were going to work on filtering by technical means, it'd be filters to
keep neo-Puritans like you out of my life, thanks.
Well said. This whole thread is example 87653478965432 of the
"censorship is A-OK if I don't like it" mindset.
My relay has become convinced that it has reached its AccountingMax
limit, though actually only 71% of it (according to my ISP) has been used.
How can I reset the stats so that this miscalculation is not used for
future configuration of expected network traffic?
Yes, I know I can just erase /
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
>> The Tor devs go to great lengths to try to keep "evil"
>> governments from using Tor against itself. Why not devote some
>> effort toward keeping "evil" traffic off of Tor?
>
>
>> Given the fact that "we need more relays" is the common mantra,
On 08/31/13 08:27, grarpamp wrote:
>
> Hopefully all the plaintext protocols will die soon and some replacement
> for the CA cert model is agreed upon so that there isn't much left to bet
> on exitwise but the dest ip:port working.
> ___
> tor-relays ma
If you have systemd(*), you can just change your unit file to contain the
following:
[service]
TimeoutSec = 60
Restart = always
RestartSec=60
StartLimitInterval=10
StartLimitBurst=500
and it will always restart the service.
* Hard to tell on debian.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Paul Staroc
Am 2013-08-31 12:06, schrieb AFO Server Operator:
> I search for a option to restart my TOR relays after the TOR process did
> crash on them? Im running TOR alpha on Debian
Just add something like
*/5 * * * * root /etc/init.d/tor start
to /etc/crontab. This will launch the init script for tor ev
Hello,
I search for a option to restart my TOR relays after the TOR process did
crash on them? Im running TOR alpha on Debian
Thanks for help
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:19:48 -0700
Gordon Morehouse wrote:
> That Guy:
> > nodes. People running non-exit relays getting booted out by their
> > VPS/ISP provider. I am just curious if it is getting worse or has
> > it
>
>
> This is rarely due to
Am Freitag, 30. August 2013, 18:25:54 schrieb Mike Perry:
> To try to get to the bottom of the recent influx of clients to the Tor
> network, it might be useful to compare load characteristics since 8/19
> for nodes with different types of flags.
>
> People with Munin setups: it would be especiall
>> This is why we need to implement extended exit flags for exits that want
>> to run post-exit filtering/enhancement policies, say for example
>> "noporn"
>> that way we can get all the religious groups dumping their tithes into
>> not just beaming reruns of the 700 club around the world, but a
31 matches
Mail list logo
