[tor-relays] Failed upgrade

Hi FYI So I've upgraded tor package from 0.4.4.6 to 0.4.5.7-1~xenial+1. No other changes. Yet on startup tor is complaining about mis-configuration: Mar 23 20:55:02.928 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". Mar 23 20:55:02.929 [notice] Read configuration

[tor-relays] Config question

Hi Recently upgraded to 4.4.6 and noticed new (for me) entry in tor logs: Jan 11 09:24:28.000 [notice] While bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: This message gets repeated every 6 hours, while there is little extra info added, as it relates to bootstrap / start-up process. I already have

Re: [tor-relays] "/var/tor/diff-cache" full!

Try this in config file: MaxConsensusAgeForDiffs 4 hours Kind regards On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 17:57, Salvatore Cuzzilla wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I'm running a non-exit relay (v0.4.2.7) on OpenBSD 6.7. > The amount of files within "/var/tor/diff-cache" is steadily increasing. > Up to almost 6G

Re: [tor-relays] Consensus Weight Dropping/Authority Issues?

Consensus & usage are independent consensus: based on available bandwidth load: based on usage by tor clients. if total available bw increases but load doesn't, observed load on a node will drop. On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 17:27, John Ricketts wrote: > I also would like to add to this - if it were

Re: [tor-relays] Consensus Weight Dropping/Authority Issues?

consensus means what fraction of traffic will pass over your nodes, statistically speaking. Hence a steady drop of consensus value, with no infra changes on your end, could also be explained by a stead rise of total bandwidth available: since your part is fixed and total grows, your fraction

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.4.2.5 - Unable to Run Tor Relay on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS VPS

Have a look in the log fie: /var/log/tor/notices.log What is in there? On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 05:23, David Croft <8pjp...@pm.me> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm unable to start newly setup/configured guard/middle relay Tor version > 0.4.2.5 after setup & configuration of Tor on an Ubuntu 18.04 VPS server.

Re: [tor-relays] DSL Router

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, 00:22 onion, wrote: > Apparently it looks like the usual router consumer products cant stand the > number of connections on a DSL Line with 40Mbit/s upload capability. > > Could somebody help and share experience or a recommendation for a small, > cheap, useful, up to date

[tor-relays] Memory leak in 0.3.4.8?

Hi I've noticed following after upgrading to latest stable version (0.3.4.8): Memory usage [image: image.png] Connection count [image: image.png] Cpu usage [image: image.png] You'll notice the upgrade happened around Saturday midnight. Known issue? Any work-around? Thanks Sebastian

Re: [tor-relays] Home router keeps failing.

Hi Gary Does it fail as well if you disable tor? Also 600/900 connections is not that high, and I would argue that you could get to that level even without Tor client, especially with internet-of-things, where all devices gain IP connectivity. It might be a software stability issue. Have you

Re: [tor-relays] Trying to set up a relay at home, but get no connections

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 at 20:30 Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Graeme Neilson dijo [Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 11:53:20AM +1200]: > > See if you can route to all the authorities. > > Tor requires that all relays are able to contact all directory > authorities. > > > > In my case tcptraceroute would not get to all

Re: [tor-relays] Inbound-outbound connexion ratio in tor

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 at 20:07 wrote: > Dear List, > > Since I started running Tor 0.3.2.10 a few months ago, I tend to have 2 to > 3 times the number of inbound connexions as outbound, as reported by nyx. > I am running a middle relay on Debian, no special anything. Right now, for > instance my

[tor-relays] Unusual load returning?

Hi I've noticed unusual load on the relay. Notice the huge change in load between 3-8 am (CET). Unusual logs: May 14 03:49:44.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 5592/5592 TAP, 40516/40516 NTor. May 14 09:49:44.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 5864/5864

Re: [tor-relays] running relay excluded from votes

It happens from time to time (don't know why), usually waiting a bit helps. looks like it's back: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2018-03-10-10-00.html#69D9FF1BE14B9AE77701A6BCBC075FF837F5AFF9 Regards On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 at 10:49 Dark Matter wrote:

Re: [tor-relays] Limiting connection count

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 at 12:50 Moritz Kammerer wrote: > Thanks for clarification. I will try LimitNOFILE = 6000. If that crashes > my NAT box, I'm going to run a bridge. > > You could also consider getting a production class router (not some consumer oriented thing),

Re: [tor-relays] measure rate of initiated HTTPs connnections

That's because this rule matches on connection count >2000 with mask 0 => so results in: more than 2000 connections to anywhere the second limit is for log action only. On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 at 22:12 Toralf Förster wrote: > I do wonder why the follwoing iptables rule does

Re: [tor-relays] Tor uses up all available memory and eventually quits

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 at 11:06 teor wrote: > > > Try to make sure MaxMemInQueues allows 10-20s of traffic. > > > Hi teor That advice is quite sensible in my opinion and should be incorporated into tor mainline. With the recent load spikes, I've always wanders why is there a

Re: [tor-relays] Tor uses up all available memory and eventually quits

I think the advice to create swap will get George kicked of VPS, as it goes right against the wishes of hosting company, and directly affects their hardware. A better advice is to tune tor process to work within memory boundaries. The "MaxMemInQueues 512 MB" is right direction, but from personal

Re: [tor-relays] Middle relays stopping because of "SYN flood"?

I'm wondering if increasing the backlog is not going to make the problem worse for you. You're machines can't cope already, and with that setting the load is going to be increased even more. Currently what doesn't fit in backlog doesn't get processed. On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 at 20:54 Christian

Re: [tor-relays] Middle relays stopping because of "SYN flood"?

Probably to do with the lately regular spikes in load on nodes. You should configure tor to protect itself and the machine it is running on: Limit its maxmeminqueue to <= 1gb (in torrc) limit virtual mem adressable by tor to <=2gb (limits on process) limit number open files to your usual load

Re: [tor-relays] Upgraded relay non show in ATLAS

I've noticed the port typo, but results are same... On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 at 20:31 r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > Are the ips still valid? > > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/FE4033D750831C32A957174ADD11E40F558A14A9 > > Is the port forward working? >

Re: [tor-relays] Upgraded relay non show in ATLAS

Are the ips still valid? https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/FE4033D750831C32A957174ADD11E40F558A14A9 Is the port forward working? IPv4 Starting Nmap 7.60 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2018-01-25 20:20 Romance Standard Time Nmap scan report for host28-237-dynamic.239-95-r.retail.telecomitalia.it

[tor-relays] Increased cpu usage

Hi AFter upgrade from 3.1.9 to 3.2.9, I've noticed that the cpu usage doubled for same throughput / conditions. Is anyone else seeing that too? Regards ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: [tor-announce] Tor 0.3.2.9 is released (new stable series)

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 at 01:27 teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2018, at 11:19, r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > > Hi > > I was wondering if anyone knows when this release would become available > as a Ubuntu package? > >

[tor-relays] Fwd: [tor-announce] Tor 0.3.2.9 is released (new stable series)

Hi I was wondering if anyone knows when this release would become available as a Ubuntu package? I'm using the repository below but it's not there yet. deb-src http://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org xenial main (I did try to ask Nick) Thx On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 at 16:31 Nick Mathewson

Re: [tor-relays] Options for Managing Relay Load (was: Re: Really strange)

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 at 23:02 r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > Hi > > This is new: > > [image: image.png] > Blue: to tor relay > Green: from tor relay > (the later dropoffs is due to network shaping @firewall) > > My current rate conf

Re: [tor-relays] Options for Managing Relay Load (was: Re: Really strange)

Hi This is new: [image: image.png] Blue: to tor relay Green: from tor relay My current rate config (lowered with recent on-slaughter) is RelayBandwidthRate 760 KBytes -> 6,5Mbit Yet, it is not respected. I had to rate limit on firewall, as bandwidth configuration was flagrantly ignored. Tx =

Re: [tor-relays] Options for Managing Relay Load (was: Re: Really strange)

Thx for the wisdom ;-) On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 00:09 teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Jan 2018, at 09:52, r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > > > > Hi teor > > > > Thanks for the reply. I'm not having issues with my relay, and

Re: [tor-relays] Options for Managing Relay Load (was: Re: Really strange)

significant to receive so many connections (499 for one /24) form a single subnet to one specific middle node. Unless that can be explained. Regards On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 at 23:25 teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Jan 2018, at 08:52, r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> w

[tor-relays] Really strange

Outcome of a script to count # connections /24 range 11 188.214.30.* 20 37.48.104.* 22 37.48.86.* 33 5.79.72.* 48 212.32.226.* 97 212.32.239.* 197 149.202.66.* 294 5.79.103.* 303 198.7.59.* 358 207.244.110.* 380 162.210.192.* 394 207.244.70.*

Re: [tor-relays] Recent wave of abuse on Tor guards

Hi I've implemented following mitigations: * limit memory in queues. For my system that's a safe yet large enough setting (2gb system mem, current usage around 320mb). MaxMemInQueues 768 MB * connlimit: both count & rate. Although, based on observations, only the rate limit is actually being

Re: [tor-relays] MaxMemInQueues - per host, or per instance?

; On 22 Dec (20:37:37), r1610091651 wrote: > > I'm wondering if it is necessary to have a lot of ram assigned to queues? > > Is there some rule of thumb to determine the proper sizing? Based on > number > > of circuits maybe? > > So there are probably many different answers

Re: [tor-relays] MaxMemInQueues - per host, or per instance?

), so it will be tricky to set > MaxMemInQueues without making it too conservative. > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM, r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > It would expect it to be per instance. Instances are independent of each > > other. Further one ca

Re: [tor-relays] MaxMemInQueues - per host, or per instance?

It would expect it to be per instance. Instances are independent of each other. Further one can only run 2 instances max / ip. On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 at 20:40 Igor Mitrofanov wrote: > Hi, > > Is MaxMemInQueues parameter per-host (global) or per-instance? > Say, there

Re: [tor-relays] botnet? abusing/attacking guard nodes

I don't quite understand the last calculation. "if all 65535 connections on an IP were open" => I'm guessing you mean ports "the biggest Tor Guard has 0.91% Guard probability" => percentage of all entries into the network handled by this guard => 0.91% of all user connections but how many user

Re: [tor-relays] Failing because we have 4063 connections already // Number of file descriptors

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017, 11:13 r1610091651, <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > That depends on how tor is started and have different origins. What i know: > * if started by systemd: the limit can be specified in the service > descripton file /lib/systemd/system/tor@default.service: =

Re: [tor-relays] Failing because we have 4063 connections already // Number of file descriptors

using limits.conf and propagated by pam: /etc/pam.d/common-* There are probably also other paths. Regards On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 at 11:03 Ralph Seichter <m16+...@monksofcool.net> wrote: > On 15.12.2017 10:45, r1610091651 wrote: > > > could be that your tuning is not being picked up by th

Re: [tor-relays] Failing because we have 4063 connections already // Number of file descriptors

Hi Please verify the effective limit used for your tor process: cat /proc//limits with process id of the tor process. could be that your tuning is not being picked up by the distro. Regards On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 at 10:39 Ralph Seichter wrote: > Since a couple of days

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks are real (probably)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 at 18:07 Felix wrote: > Hi Alex > > Great points. > > > conntrack -L -p tcp --dport 9001 | awk '{print $5}' | sort | uniq -c > | sort -n > > On FreeBSD one can do: > > In packetfilter: > > # play with the numbers but more than 64k per ip if

[tor-relays] Issues with faravahar?

Hi I'm seeing regular issues with faravahar in logs lately. Is somebody working on this? Logs: Dec 12 10:32:56.000 [warn] HTTP status 502 ("Bad Gateway") was unexpected while uploading descriptor to server '154.35.175.225:80'. Possibly the server is misconfigured? Dec 12 10:33:56.000 [warn]

Re: [tor-relays] Too many connections warning

Hi I think tor already has 32k open files limit, hence the error. Just to make sure, try this: cat /proc/`cat /run/tor/tor.pid`/limits Notice the line with "Max open files" Depending on how tor is started, you might need to change the config: with systemd

Re: [tor-relays] So long and thanks for all the abuse complaints

of connections. On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 at 19:51 Ralph Seichter <m16+...@monksofcool.net> wrote: > On 05.12.17 19:24, r1610091651 wrote: > > > Having servers on-line and complaining about such things is just > > unreasonable and laziness on the operator side: don't want scan

Re: [tor-relays] So long and thanks for all the abuse complaints

Port scans are part of internet life in my opinion. One cannot have internet access and no (occasional) port scan, spam mails, worms, ... Having servers on-line and complaining about such things is just unreasonable and laziness on the operator side: don't want scans, then setup proper firewall

Re: [tor-relays] Atlas is now Relay Search!

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 11:46 Iain R. Learmonth wrote: > Hi, > > On 16/11/17 02:36, teor wrote: > > No, I can't, because iOS ad blockers do not provide this information. > > Did you add many resources in the transition? > > Short of buying me an iPad I have no idea how to

Re: [tor-relays] New on relays and Tor

Have a look at Nyx (successor to Arm). On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 17:01 Matt Traudt wrote: > > > On 11/12/2017 10:37 AM, Alfredo Bollati wrote: > > Hi all I just started investigating and getting involved with Tor > > project. I have configured my router to port forwarding on one

Re: [tor-relays] AccountingMax 48 GBytes is not working

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 21:52 Artur Pędziwilk < cb86eb08b7299219c1af5dbcaddd4...@protonmail.ch> wrote: > Hi Tor operators, > I have relay with > AccountingMax 48 GBytes > AccountingStart day 09:00 > MaxMemInQueues 512 > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/local/bin/obfs4proxy managed > >

Re: [tor-relays] No Gaurd

Stable flag is missing and it's required for Guard. https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2017-09-27-12-00.html#E65D300F11E1DB12C534B0146BDAB6972F1A8A48 On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 15:30 Kurt Besig wrote: > >

Re: [tor-relays] Accounting logic

Thanks nusenu for the pointer. Looks like it's a real "undocumented feature" ;-), and matches the behaviour I'm seeing. On a related note, is there a way to search the archives on specific keywords? Thanks Seb On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 at 23:44 nusenu wrote: > Teor (tor

[tor-relays] Accounting logic

Hi I'm on version 0.3.1.7 on Linux. I've following config entries: AccountingMax 1639 GBytes AccountingStart month 24 00:00 Today I've discovered following log entries: Sep 24 00:00:00.000 [notice] Configured hibernation. This interval began at 2017-09-24 00:00:00; the scheduled wake-up time

Re: [tor-relays] Rate setting in tor

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 at 07:19 Roger Dingledine <a...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 07:14:58AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 22:56:17 +0000, r1610091651 wrote: > > > RelayBandwidthRate 2048 KBytes > > > RelayBandwidthBurst 2048 KByt

[tor-relays] Rate setting in tor

Hi I've a question regarding the rate setting in torrc and tor honoring it. I've set up a tor relay with following rate settings: RelayBandwidthRate 2048 KBytes RelayBandwidthBurst 2048 KBytes But using arm, I'm seeing that tor is not honoring these settings, with bursts frequently exceeding the

Re: [tor-relays] Doing the english [Was: Kitten1 and kitten2 compromised (guard/hs/fallback directory)]

Also explained by British dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/flammable-or-inflammable Cheers On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 02:03 Torix wrote: > I was told in 1955 that "flammable" was invented to put on trucks because > so many people - including many

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP

Hi all Just to add some perspective... I'm running a relay on dynamic ip. My ISP will usually not change my IP assignment as long as it's in use. The platform in use is not Rasberry Pi, but Odroid C2. Also an ARM, but a bit more powerful one. Kind regards On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 16:36 Rana

Re: [tor-relays] Tor Fails to Start on Ubuntu 16.04

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016, 04:43 teor, wrote: > > > On 13 Nov. 2016, at 12:17, heartsucker > wrote: > > > > Hey everyone > > > > I have a fresh install of Ubuntu 16.04 that is unable to start Tor. > > > > Some useful output: > > > > root@tor-1 ~ # uname

Re: [tor-relays] Questions regarding arm on Debian

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 at 12:41 Dennis Christ wrote: > Yes that is what i tried to do. But it does not work in my case. > > $ arm > [Errno 13] Permission denied: '/var/lib/tor/control_auth_cookie' > > Even if my user is in the group debian-tor the user has no right to > access

Re: [tor-relays] Drop in consensus weight

e more stable (low-median) * leading to more accurate assessment of nodes * and wider utilisation of the available nodes * leading to higher network throughput Does that sound plausible? Cheers Seb On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 at 17:37 r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > Thanks for the li

Re: [tor-relays] Drop in consensus weight

0 teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 Nov. 2016, at 23:32, r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be> wrote: > > > > The previous drops, i know why they happened (related to server > unavailability) so I know the cause. For 5th however I have no clue. > &g

Re: [tor-relays] Drop in consensus weight

The previous drops, i know why they happened (related to server unavailability) so I know the cause. For 5th however I have no clue. Seb On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 at 13:12 teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 Nov. 2016, at 22:52, r1610091651 <r1610091...@telenet.be>

[tor-relays] Drop in consensus weight

Hi all The consensus weight of the relay I'm running drop recently (5th of nov) to almost half of previous value. To my knowledge there was no changes on my end. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/36EE8D47E570B8D5515460A9972F3CFD9EDFDFCE Is there a way to identify the cause of this drop? Is