This could be a test of whether anyone enforces a moderation policy here. On 14-01-21 05:59 PM, julien.robi...@free.fr wrote: > Hi Mike, > > What you said is very interesting, it was the missing part for me to > understand why the weight of the relay in the consensus can drop (or rise > again) so quickly (sometimes 3 times per day) without being caused by any > change of used bandwith on the network cable of the dedicated machine : the > only visible changes in the server bandwith were visible a couple of > minutes/hours after changes in consensus weight, and it was proportionnal. > > The cause of the problem I encountered will be found here : when the > authority servers were doing bandwith measurement on it. > > May be an anormally great amount of circuits (depends on the origins and > networks of these circuits) were almost unusable : for example if there is 50 > percent chance to be measured with very very low bandwith when the authority > server did the job. In this case, no error from the algorithm : he did his > job - bad bandwith, bad ratio. > > > > With these informations, I would think that my server encounter(ed) some > difficulty somewhere in these 2 possible locations : > > 1-Into the machine itself, causing aleatory bad bandwith on some circuits or > circuits cannot establish*, ever with few people connected (quarter of the > machine capacity the problem was still present, ever with new identities > running alone with pretty slow bandwith, so we can exclude normal TCP/IP > socket congestion between my relay and others ones). Also, I had no "Your > computer is too slow to handle this many creation requests" while the problem > was still present. > > 2-Difficulty to communicate with a particular point of the Internet network, > point that is involved during bandwith measurements by authorities. If the > problem is still present I got to verify by observing, on Tor Atlas, other > relays that are on the same network service provider - if possible into the > same datacenter (Iliad DC3, France, adresses like 88.191.xxx.xxx but may be > not only). > > Another 2- May be great scale geographic networks problems on my ISP made > circuits to have 50 percent chance to work fast and fine (and using all the > available bandwith) and 50 percent chance to be slow and unusable, but it > looks like a too big affair, I'm not sure it's really possible (and 50 > percent is an example value). > > Is the measurement method the same for Exit Nodes and Middle/Entry Nodes ? > > *What is the decision of the authority algorithm when the relay to measure > cannot be established into one or more circuits ? > > Thank you in advance ! I will wait and see for the following days or week and > keep you informed. > Julien ROBIN > > PS : while I am there, first fall down (consensus weight fraction divided by > 2, 0.137% to 0.067%, now 12100, 0.77%) on ArachnideFR94v2 few minutes ago, > (but with such low values, variation are may be normal, we got to wait and > see, I will mark the consensus weight values into an excel tab to be sure of > what I will see on following days and weeks). Exit probablity from 0.400 to > 0.200 :( >
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
