Hi Mike,
Call me crazy but i think that there is a hidden clue somewhere in the
actual metrics graph from the last 2 days, regarding the experiment and
the performance.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Yours sincerely
Sebastian Urbach
Relig
Am Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:32:19 -0800
schrieb Mike Perry :
Hi,
> Just to be sure, I decided to shut off the experiment on Sunday at 3pm
> US Pacific time anyways. It looks like the performance has in fact
> gotten worse since then.
>
> Does this mean the feedback was definitely working? Who the hel
Thus spake Sebastian Urbach (sebast...@urbach.org):
> > Yeah, I agree. I think that it's now clear that both the variance and
> > the mean of the torperf graphs are way above norm, and we don't have
> > much other explaination for it other than the feedback experiment not
> > working. The question
I've been seeing these messages ("hammer" is routine disk maintenance, which
makes other things run slowly):
Dec 17 05:09:27 darner Tor[1138]: Your computer is too slow to handle this
many
circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth
conf
ig option or choosing a m
Am Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:43:25 -0800
schrieb Mike Perry :
Hi Mike,
> Yeah, I agree. I think that it's now clear that both the variance and
> the mean of the torperf graphs are way above norm, and we don't have
> much other explaination for it other than the feedback experiment not
> working. The qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/15/2011 3:43 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> I've made the following changes this afternoon:
>
> 1. On the assumption that we're seeing the huge increase in
> variance on torperf because faster nodes are only *sometimes* at
> max capacity, but most of t
Thus spake Sebastian Urbach (sebast...@urbach.org):
> Around the 24 of November the performance graph reported a value below
> 4 sec. per 50kb, and right now including the last few days we can
> barely reach 6 sec. per 50kb.
>
> Or in other words, we lost way more than 50 % peformance since that
My two guard nodes are having a really hard time recovering from the
experiments. Especially
https://metrics.torproject.org/routerdetail.html?fingerprint=0ed899d7f81d85ec8f7989bc197d8f280f5cf79b
seems to be badly beaten and unable to recover.
My other node
https://metrics.torproject.org/routerdeta
Hi Mike,
Around the 24 of November the performance graph reported a value below
4 sec. per 50kb, and right now including the last few days we can
barely reach 6 sec. per 50kb.
Or in other words, we lost way more than 50 % peformance since that
day. Unless you guys are about to really step up the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2011 10:34 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Tim Wilde (twi...@cymru.com):
>
>> We're not seeing source port exhaustion, but we are seeing two
>> warns, one of which I haven't been able to nail down:
>>
>> 2011 Dec 13 20:22:07.000|[notice]
Thus spake Tim Wilde (twi...@cymru.com):
> We're not seeing source port exhaustion, but we are seeing two warns,
> one of which I haven't been able to nail down:
>
> 2011 Dec 13 20:22:07.000|[notice] We stalled too much while trying to
> write 8542 bytes to address "[scrubbed]". If this happens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 9:14 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> It looks like Moritz is seeing some evidence of TCP sourceport
> exhaustion in his Tor logs: "[warn] Error binding network socket:
> Address already in use".
>
> He's also monitoring TCP connection counts on
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Jon (torance...@gmail.com):
>
>> In adding further info on the topic, I have noticed and looked back
>> over the past couple of weeks and have seen a drop of of usage of
>> about 43% s of today. I am not in the higher bracket as othe
Thus spake Mike Perry (mikepe...@torproject.org):
> Thus spake Tim Wilde (twi...@cymru.com):
>
> > > I try to keep everything I do documented on that wiki. All these
> > > servers run four instances of Tor each (one per core) and traffic
> > > is accounted for in total. Also, keep in mind that vn
Thus spake Tim Wilde (twi...@cymru.com):
> > I try to keep everything I do documented on that wiki. All these
> > servers run four instances of Tor each (one per core) and traffic
> > is accounted for in total. Also, keep in mind that vnstat counts
> > both incoming and outgoing traffic, so 700Mbp
Thus spake Jon (torance...@gmail.com):
> In adding further info on the topic, I have noticed and looked back
> over the past couple of weeks and have seen a drop of of usage of
> about 43% s of today. I am not in the higher bracket as others, but I
> have been in the 3 bars bracket only up till r
Thus spake Sebastian Urbach (sebast...@urbach.org):
> Seems to get better in the last hours ...
>
> I want to suggest strongly a change for the metrics / performance site.
> The displayed default size is 50KB and should be changed to 1MB. 50 KB
> ist out of touch with reality for any service i ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 3:21 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> I try to keep everything I do documented on that wiki. All these
> servers run four instances of Tor each (one per core) and traffic
> is accounted for in total. Also, keep in mind that vnstat counts
> both
On 12.12.2011 20:18, Tim Wilde wrote:
> Any specific tips on how you're pushing 700Mbps from a single instance
> (I assume that's what that's indicating) beyond what's on your wiki?
> With AES-NI and most (maybe all) of the tweaks I've found on your
> pages (awesome resource, by the way, thanks for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/10/2011 6:56 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 10.12.2011 11:30, Andy Isaacson wrote:
>>> Please keep an eye on your relays and tell us if anything
>>> unexpected happens over the next week or so.
>> we're seeing a pretty significant rise in throughpu
In adding further info on the topic, I have noticed and looked back
over the past couple of weeks and have seen a drop of of usage of
about 43% s of today. I am not in the higher bracket as others, but I
have been in the 3 bars bracket only up till recently.
Don't know if this will help, but if i
Am Fri, 9 Dec 2011 19:56:23 -0800
schrieb Mike Perry :
Hi Mike,
> I do not fully understand the cause of it yet, but I did find a rather
> nasty bug in the treatment of Guard nodes, where we were not properly
> using the "bwauthmercy" consensus param for them, and were punishing
> slow guards thr
On 10.12.2011 11:30, Andy Isaacson wrote:
>> Please keep an eye on your relays and tell us if anything unexpected
>> happens over the next week or so.
> we're seeing a pretty significant rise in throughput on noisetor01, we
> peaked at 530 Mbps at around 2011-12-09 17:00 PST, versus previous
> peak
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 06:57:22PM -0800, Mike Perry wrote:
> We'll probably be running this next experiment for about a week (or
> perhaps longer if it doesn't explode and seems to improve performance
> on https://metrics.torproject.org/performance.html) starting tonight
> or tomorrow.
>
> Please
Thus spake Sebastian Urbach (sebast...@urbach.org):
> Am Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:57:22 -0800
> schrieb Mike Perry :
>
> Hi,
>
> > I've made five major changes to try to address these issues:
> > happens over the next week or so.
>
> Well, somebody has to say it and it seems to be me. The second try
Am Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:57:22 -0800
schrieb Mike Perry :
Hi,
> I've made five major changes to try to address these issues:
> happens over the next week or so.
Well, somebody has to say it and it seems to be me. The second try is
also a complete bust. Since your post the performance is getting wor
Over Thanksgiving and into early this week, we ran an experiment to
test a feedback mechanism to attempt to allocate usage of the Tor
network such that the measured stream capacities through all relays
became equal:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torflow.git/blob/HEAD:/NetworkScanners/BwAuthority/RE
27 matches
Mail list logo
