Julien,
Everything is going well now. I've seen spikes going as high as 8MB/s. Atlas shows 1.x MB/s measured already and the consensus weight has picked up a little too. It's been improving slowly. The problem was my iptables (embarrassing). I had (by mistake) blacklisted Tor IPs :-| Thanks again. On 2014-11-05 07:10, Julien ROBIN wrote: > Wow, it's not very good > With an advertised bandwidth raising 1,03MB your consensus weight is now > updated to 13 (it's far too low). > > It means that somethings goes bad when bwauth is testing your relay, so even > with a very good advertised bandwidth, your final score keeps ultra-low, and > with such a consensus wieght, your relay keeps unused by clients. > > I have no idea from where can be the problem (and the solution), technically > it could be the ISP that blocks bw auth, but in real facts it would be pretty > strange. > > Try to transport your relay (/var/lib/tor/keys and /etc/tor/torrc) to another > computer on the same connection (the more different, the better), if it still > doesn't works, it means something at your connection make a problem. > > Double check your upload rate is good (since everything have to be > transmitted, the lowest bandwidth (generally upload) applies to the relay). > > If your relay appears to be online it means that it means that port > redirections is well configured, so I'm not sure that something else could be > misconfigured into it (if you have several ones, test a different one) > > Let us know when you find the solution ! This problem is surprising but it > cannot be nowhere ;) > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Rafael Rodriguez" <rafa...@icctek.com> > À: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Envoyé: Mercredi 5 Novembre 2014 00:13:37 > Objet: Re: [tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends. > > Indeed, Julien. > > As a matter of fact I saw the server (using the Tor network) pushing up to > 8.8MB/s at some point while I was using it as a proxy in my setup. That was > yesterday. As soon as I closed the SocksListenAddress I was connecting to, it > went back to almost not existent cos' it is weighted 10. Even the Fast flag > isn't there. As I said, I'm waiting to see if it picks up relevance in the > next day or so. > > On 2014-11-04 14:26, Julien ROBIN wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Tor Atlas after a little time offset, your download seems now to appear > into your server stats. > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 > [1] Your Advertised Bandwidth seems now to be better : 866.83 KB/s > But the consensus weight is still at 10 (it's like zero) for now (let's wait > less that one day) > > In the following hours, we will see if the "consensus weight" value can be > better thanks to that (so then true clients will start using the bandwidth > and nourish your advertised bandwith). > > If I remember well what I read before, the consensus weight, when > recalculated, is the result of your Advertised Bandwidth multiplied by a > coefficient obtained by bw authorites (when periodically testing your > server). If it's congestionned, the test gives low result and your consensus > weight is reduced. If it's really good, your consensus weight is increased > (and your server usage too). > > If your consensus weight is stuck at 10 and doesn't increase, it would mean > that bw authorities cannot test your server and always gives "zero" as > coefficient (if so, you will have to check everything on your network : > router, softwares, etc) > > The answer is near :) > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Rafael Rodriguez" < rafa...@icctek.com > > À: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Envoyé: Lundi 3 Novembre 2014 22:04:24 > Objet: Re: [tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends. > > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for the tip. I did ssh'd tunnel into my Tor server and I can pull > downloads at 1-2MB/s as expected. I do not see my server getting any better > in measurements though. After 4 days running my Advertised Bandwidth is > barely 62kb/s and its Consensus Weight is 10. I wouldn't mind as long as it > serves our Tor community but I'm under the impression that something is just > not quite right. This box was put in place specifically to put all its > bandwidth to good use and help the network. I have the feeling that a Relay > measured at such low speeds does more harm than good to the network. I will > keep it up there running as it is since I cannot pinpoint a problem at this > time and maybe it just needs to stay online for a longer period of time. > > --- > > On 2014-11-02 07:29, Julien ROBIN wrote: > > It strange you still haven't any used bandwidth > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 > [1] I cannot explain you why but I have an idea for you in order to > "kickstart" your bandwidth usage. > > A tor process used to relay traffic also have the possibility to be used as > client. If it's at home, it's easy (socks v5 at 127.0.0.1:9050 if you haven't > changed anything), if your relay isn't at home, use SSH tunnelling to do so > (SSH session brings you to "localhost" on your remote computer, on the port > you choose) > > Try to download something through your relay, if nothing changed, even the > "client" bandwidth will be able to raise your advertised and used bandwidth > as server, in order for your server to "start" having weight on the network. > > Once "started", everything should be automatic but normally, the start is > also automatic after 2 or 3 days, so it is strange. > > May be it's because of the oversupply of "middle nodes" on the network (there > is so much middle nodes that most of them - the slowers - probably keep > totally unused). Without the guard flag (and it needs enough bandwidth) your > relay cannot be used as entry guard right now. > > Good luck ! > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Rafael Rodriguez" < rafa...@icctek.com > > À: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Envoyé: Samedi 1 Novembre 2014 16:16:24 > Objet: Re: [tor-relays] Bwauths Measures question, friends. > > Maybe I should just wait longer but the 3 days unmetered has obviously been > passed already. That's why I'm asking about bwauths measurements. > > I was under the impression that after 3 days bwauths adjust your consensus > weight and raises your bandwidth estimate. In this case, the server is simply > capped at 20kb/s still while my "advertise bandwidth" is little over 50kb/s. > Since I have a 2MB/s relay, I'm expecting to see at least over 100kb/s or > 250kb/s measurements to make my relay a usable one. Yet the advertised speed > hasn't changed. Is that normal and should I just give it more time? That's > what I'm trying to understand. > > On 2014-11-01 07:00, Krbusek Christian wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > You may want to read the following, which should make this more clear. > https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay [2] Cheers > > Am 01.11.2014 um 10:46 schrieb Rafael Rodriguez: > > Anyone knows how often bwauths measures a relay? I don't understand why > directory authorities have not lifted the 20KB cap for my older relay. Now I > have doubts if it could be a problem with my server. This is a 2MB/s relay > with burst of 4MB/s to start tuning it and increase it later if stable, which > is not being used and has been running for over 3 days. Is it normal for > Relays to take longer than three days to start getting at least some traffic > and for directory authorities to lift the 20KB cap? Fingerprint > 48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUVL1GAAoJECgP5Pn8Zk3/cfoQAI9bMRyx8hl3B+V+vSLC7xoJ > sfQedgt15LRyJ/+Ru3tQaPDPOkleTKR3rCnKaDiRCmjxibWt4liRUBji2nzDPFJU > dcD0kEXqCA/H3jyIJWvKnkxvzUfAjCZ7Y7b16sGsJSgVfZ8UFin52loTDgjSz7zU > tgsqsOBIHT72gr/hbxRBzr3ZP8LZqTDA5baoLFAxnYyxIQwK5eRefI6zMP9cuiOA > FL4I60Tige+TBp8kDnyKdYosxRJFkkAJN3YCuHuewIgoV0pD/xkScEscYgqp+CWu > cMQkj5NDDMP/I5ZXw2a64Etq33Hc4SzEm4HvKquu05pS2QgClXu7pg8z2u1BCdPQ > 7uMZRyKfAnOOwITKVxsKXT5XJySFJXskMLgupLtp3iEA24GfLJTax0pa7xmOeEbb > nvt2kGdrKvAl3t4PgwvtwuFmfJoqXzjxWMJJRD2s3hXi0TS4WC1y1pccw+INXKsG > 7sV+dHhqDPwOHpFleHv4RG207Kx6P8+hbNjdeVI8iEelAhKoPfcUJDM/A4aa2ahd > GB+vZrnuInJlZJeg+hL28Xk1pOxwHtq046nhLosVY7YNDW6CHoD5aruWeQdCT1y5 > AFZ/xqOP+XPWMYj/UJLhWoBFTjYjSUZuxi5c4nGpKoK/OSc1GCZERx8Ec7mJrN2R > lzlnW4uBh7M+pvMrhRWl > =rF5K > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays [3] Links: ------ [1] https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/48ADFCC561402D7EBB1CDE233F206B01D8FA0765 [2] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay [3] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
