FYI list
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16696
Description
At present both 'longclaw' and 'maatuska' have
dropped out of the BW consensus ('longclaw'
is restarting with new version, not sure
about 'maatuska').
This has caused the BW consensus logic to revert
to using relay self-
At Tue Aug 4 20:16:17 UTC 2015 by Jannis Wiese mail at janniswiese.com
>Strange thing: My relay [0] is speeding up since then
>significantly (finally!!)
That's because with no BWauth quorum the consensus
algorithm reverts to using self-measured bandwidth
with a ceiling of 1.
This causes the
Poking around Blutmagie, I suspect the
number of relays with chopped bandwidth
weightings might be more like in the
range of 25-45.
Perhaps the PID-controller algorithm
should be adjusted to bias somewhat
less toward super-fast relays.
___
tor-relays ma
Many under-utilized and never-utilized exits
relays back online with BWauth outage.
Unscientific sample out of 234 previously
Unmeasured=1 exit relays, but almost all
of the ones checked are like these
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0D7739DEF5047035670435FED9E1F57EF6AE
https://atlas.t
At Tue Aug 4 22:17:54 UTC 2015 by Mike Perry mikeperry at torproject dot org
>
>In some instances where I have not selected
>my guards manually, Tor Browser is unbearably
>slow. Like really, really painfully slow.
>The whole time. Until I reinstall it.
>
>This makes me think that the performance of
>BWauths are continuously pairing relays for
>measurements, and perhaps metrics from that
>could be mapped to autonomous system numbers
. . .scratch AS, geo-location is
better and MaxMind specializes in that
Pinging a FiOS relay in LA takes
75ms while a close-by relay takes
8ms. Both are in AS 7
Maybe geo-location would not be so great
because two networks in the same physical
area might have relatively poor connectivity
to each other.
Aggregated IP block might be the ticket.
CIDR-Report has both actual and suggested
netblock aggregations.
http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#Gains
Shows 5
Thanks for the heads up!
A fifth bwauth is expected to start voting "real soon now", and I'm
not sure why maatuska didn't vote on bwauth data last vote, but I've
pinged some folks so hopefully we can get this resolved quickly.
-tom
On 30 July 2015 at 12:04, wrote:
> FYI list
>
> https://trac.t
Much of Tor traffic is from long-term
circuits moving bulk data, so apparently
it will take many hours or even days
for rebalancing to fully take effect.
Is not clear whether it will cause
serious trouble or not.
My thought is that one BWauth in
a consensus is better than self-measure,
as BWauths
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
starlight.201...@binnacle.cx:
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16696
thanks for this info.
Has this fallback happened before (=some experience on the potential
impact available) or is this outage happening for the first time s
On 30 July 2015 at 12:14, Tom Ritter wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up!
>
> A fifth bwauth is expected to start voting "real soon now", and I'm
> not sure why maatuska didn't vote on bwauth data last vote, but I've
> pinged some folks so hopefully we can get this resolved quickly.
Aaaand we're bac
Welcome.
This event led to my discovering the
Unmeasured=1 flag in the cached-*consensus
files (was wondering where it was).
That new BWauth is badly needed. See
about 460 unmeasured relays and from
an unscientific sample it seems
like many of them are stuck-at-20
exit nodes--valuable resources
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Since 2015-08-02 consensus-health checker is reporting:
> ERROR: The following directory authorities are not reporting
> bandwidth scanner results: maatuska, longclaw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVwRDXAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0WcYQAIQGzR+n9M
Strange thing: My relay [0] is speeding up since then significantly (finally!!)…
Cheers,
Jannis
[0]
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/8827944C4BDCBDAC9079803F47823403C11A9B7A
> On 04.08.2015, at 21:21, nusenu wrote:
> Since 2015-08-02 consensus-health checker is reporting:
>> ERROR: The fo
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:53:33PM +0200, nusenu wrote:
> Has this fallback happened before (=some experience on the potential
> impact available) or is this outage happening for the first time since
> the bwauths are in place?
Indeed, it happened a few times back in 2010-2011 when we were
first r
elays] BWauth no-consensus state in effect
Many under-utilized and never-utilized exits relays back online with BWauth
outage.
Unscientific sample out of 234 previously
Unmeasured=1 exit relays, but almost all of the ones checked are like these
https://atlas.torproject.org/#de
Roger Dingledine:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:53:33PM +0200, nusenu wrote:
> > Has this fallback happened before (=some experience on the potential
> > impact available) or is this outage happening for the first time since
> > the bwauths are in place?
>
> Indeed, it happened a few times back in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
That is correct Mike Perry - (at least in my case) Tor is much slower
(any page takes more time to load) than when bandwidth authorities
were assigning weights. This happens on 2 different client computers
and one live Tails (obviously each uses
Hi.
I have to admit it is nice to see my relay getting some more serious
use. It has seen a several fold increase in traffic over the last few days.
On 08/04/2015 10:06 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> I'm guessing this is because we have enough relays, with enough capacity,
> to handle the current
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:58:30 +0100
Tim Sammut wrote:
> That said, it raises the partially-rhetorical question: should I spend
> my $x/month on running a relay or could that money be better used in
> other places?
Generally depends on if you are getting a good deal on bandwidth, i.e. how
many tera
Thank you for the note, Roman.
On 08/05/2015 12:07 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:58:30 +0100
> Tim Sammut wrote:
>
>> That said, it raises the partially-rhetorical question: should I spend
>> my $x/month on running a relay or could that money be better used in
>> other places?
Am Mittwoch, 5. August 2015 13:26 schrieb Tim Sammut
:
Thank you for the note, Roman.
On 08/05/2015 12:07 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:58:30 +0100
Tim Sammut wrote:
That said, it raises the partially-rhetorical question: should I
spend
my $x/month on running a relay
22 matches
Mail list logo
