2015-10-15 16:45 GMT+02:00 :
> If you have the ability to use 'tc' instead
> of BandwidthRate (per posts earlier this month)
> you should do that. RelayBandwidth* are not
> intended for limiting bandwidth in dedicated
> relays. Replace them with BandwidthRate
> and BandwidthBurst if you can't us
++ 15/10/15 12:28 -0800 - I:
>What does NL (CC)?
I presume "Netherlands" and "Country Code". In other words, given the
number of exit nodes in the Netherlands and/or the volume of bandwidth
provided from the Netherlands, it's better to have new nodes elsewhere
for reasons as diversity.
--
Re
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:11:23 -0400
starlight.201...@binnacle.cx allegedly wrote:
> Choices are not simple.
>
Never have been. And they get tougher over time. Trust me.
-
Mick Morgan
gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 20:20:13 -, nusenu wrote:
>>> LeaseWeb has 49 euro 100TB servers available
>>> in the Netherlands--killer exit boxes that will
>>> rate high and pull 15000 per Blutmagie. OVH has
>>> good offerings as well
>>
>>Please consider diversity when adding relays.
>>
>>OVH (AS
What does NL (CC)?
>
> OVH (AS) and NL (CC) are among the worst places to add relays from a
> (simplified) diversity point of view.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-
> LeaseWeb has 49 euro 100TB servers available
> in the Netherlands--killer exit boxes that will
> rate high and pull 15000 per Blutmagie. OVH has
> good offerings as well
Please consider diversity when adding relays.
OVH (AS) and NL (CC) are among the worst places to add relays from a
(simplifi
>>I turned up 4 instances, waited a few days to see which one performed the best, then shut down the others.That is very clever.Some perform much better than others.Rob,
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.
Due to the variance of performance of VPS instances, the last time I
decided to add another single relay, I turned up 4 instances, waited a few
days to see which one performed the best, then shut down the others. This
only cost a few extra USD, at most, and greatly improved the value of the
remaini
_gfs_ ccrelaycc NL 942 98 4.27 L 95.85.8.226 443 80 95.85.8.226
__fs_ jaine IT 216 13 4.27 L 5.249.145.164 443 80 ... .aruba.it
__fs_ inara SG 38 98 4.27 L 128.199.148.243 443 80 128.199.148.243
One likely contributor to the relatively
high rating of 'ccrelaycc' is residence
in t
>None of the above :)
>
>I run these three relays[1][2][3].
>
>ccrelaycc [1] has acquired the guard flag in the
>last few days (don't know when, last time I
>checked it did not have it).
This relay is rated near the boundary of
minimum Guard rating and goes in and out
of the state.
>A thing that
2015-10-14 23:35 GMT+02:00 :
>>* given costant resource (i.e. euro/month) I can
>>afford to run relays is it in general better to
>>run one bigger relay or, say, two smaller ones.
>
> Based on a past thread, guessing you run
>
> __fs_ BV2 IT 344 71 6.10 L 5.249.159.209 9001 None ... .aruba.it
> __
2015-10-14 23:46 GMT+02:00 Saint Aardvark the Carpeted
:
> An alternative to Puppet or Chef (and I'm a fan of both) would be
> Ansible; it's much simpler to pick up, and uses SSH to connect to
> machines to manage them -- no master server needed. I'd say that
> with three nodes, something like thi
On 10/15/2015 01:22 AM, Green Dream wrote:
>> An alternative to Puppet or Chef (and I'm a fan of both) would be
>> Ansible; it's much simpler to pick up, and uses SSH to connect to
>> machines to manage them -- no master server needed.
> You just changed my life. I just hadn't looked into Ansible y
> An alternative to Puppet or Chef (and I'm a fan of both) would be
> Ansible; it's much simpler to pick up, and uses SSH to connect to
> machines to manage them -- no master server needed.
You just changed my life. I just hadn't looked into Ansible yet. It took
about 5 minutes to setup, and seem
Green Dream disturbed my sleep to write:
> You could use something like Puppet or Chef to manage multiple nodes.
> However, the compute resources and time involved with setting up either
> solution are high enough that it probably wouldn't make sense to do this
> for only 3 nodes.
An alternative t
>* given costant resource (i.e. euro/month) I can
>afford to run relays is it in general better to
>run one bigger relay or, say, two smaller ones.
Based on a past thread, guessing you run
__fs_ BV2 IT 344 71 6.10 L 5.249.159.209 9001 None ... .aruba.it
__fs_ BV3 IT 344 73 6.10 L 5.249.159.198 90
You could use something like Puppet or Chef to manage multiple nodes.
However, the compute resources and time involved with setting up either
solution are high enough that it probably wouldn't make sense to do this
for only 3 nodes.
___
tor-relays mailing
2015-10-14 23:00 GMT+02:00 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor :
>
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 07:55, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> I am currently running three small relays on two different services/ISPs.
>
> I have two somewhat unrelated questions:
> * given costant resource (i.e. euro/month) I can afford to run rela
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 07:55, Cristian Consonni wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am currently running three small relays on two different services/ISPs.
>
> I have two somewhat unrelated questions:
> * given costant resource (i.e. euro/month) I can afford to run relays
> is it in general better to run one b
Hi,
I am currently running three small relays on two different services/ISPs.
I have two somewhat unrelated questions:
* given costant resource (i.e. euro/month) I can afford to run relays
is it in general better to run one bigger relay or, say, two smaller
ones.
* are there any tools to manage m
20 matches
Mail list logo
