[tor-relays] Min. Bandwidth for Bridge Relay?
Hi! I have around 50-60 KB/s of bandwidth that I'd like to use for running a bridge relay. Is this a sufficient amount of bandwidth? I ask because it doesn't seem like very much compared to the amounts that others donate to the tor network. Tor documentation suggests as little as 20 KB/s can be used to run a tor relay but this seems to be a very low badwidth rate. From looking at the tor status web page via blutmagie.de it would seem that there some low bandwidth relays but are these really useful or too slow to be useful to the tor network? If someone can confirm that 50-60 KB/s for bridge relay is useful then I would go ahead & run my bridge relay. Best regards, ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Min. Bandwidth for Bridge Relay?
freef...@mail.md: > Hi! Hi there! (I'm not an Tor official nor should you weight my opinion too much) > I have around 50-60 KB/s of bandwidth that I'd like to use for running a > bridge relay. Great. > Is this a sufficient amount of bandwidth? I ask because it doesn't seem > like very much compared to the amounts that others donate to the tor > network. I got told that the uptime of a bridge should be at least a couple of hours to be useful. (yep, uptime has nothing to do with bandwidth, but..) IMO bridges are expected to be run from residential connections (beside others) where bandwidth isn't as plentiful as it is for servers. At least the upload-bandwidth is bad. > Tor documentation suggests as little as 20 KB/s can be used to run a tor > relay but this seems to be a very low badwidth rate. As far as I know there were some changes that only with 30 KB/s will see something one would call traffic. > From looking at the tor status web page via blutmagie.de it would seem > that there some low bandwidth relays but are these really useful or too > slow to be useful to the tor network? "Normal" relays push much more traffic than 50 KB/s when they are capable of doing so. I can't argue for or against another relay which adds some bandwidth to the network. For huge amounts of bandwidth (plus meeting the uptime requirement) I'd argue for being a relay. > If someone can confirm that 50-60 KB/s for bridge relay is useful then I > would go ahead & run my bridge relay. Bridges serve a different purpose than "normal" relays. Bridges are used to get around censors (or not being "seen" as connecting to the Tor network on first glance) where people are happy to reach the website they wanted to visit. It's not about pushing large amounts of bandwidth back an forth, it's more about providing access to Tor and therefor the rest of the Internet. > Best regards, Also Best Regards, Sebastian ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Min. Bandwidth for Bridge Relay?
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 08:17:01PM +0200, Sebastian G. wrote: > > Tor documentation suggests as little as 20 KB/s can be used to run a tor > > relay but this seems to be a very low badwidth rate. > > As far as I know there were some changes that only with 30 KB/s will see > something one would call traffic. Yes -- but that's only for public relays. > Bridges serve a different purpose than "normal" relays. Bridges are used > to get around censors (or not being "seen" as connecting to the Tor > network on first glance) where people are happy to reach the website > they wanted to visit. It's not about pushing large amounts of bandwidth > back an forth, it's more about providing access to Tor and therefor the > rest of the Internet. Right. I think a 50KB/s bridge is still useful. See also https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#RelayOrBridge --Roger ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] bwadv vs bwhist + implications
Hi, we're currently looking forward to expand our contribution to the Tor network and as a mathematically fascinated person, I'm pretty much into statistical data from https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html at the moment and implication on Accounting/Bandwidthrate configuration opportunities for our Tor relays to utilize them at maximum efficiency, i.e. I'd like to start a discussion with other relay operators. That said, I noticed that the BW advertised into the network (bwadv) vs the BW actually put through the network (bwhist) is at a 1.544945508 ratio throughout the whole Tor network. I.e. a relay configured to provide 500 GiB of traffic/mo would put through (respectively actually is putting through right now) "just" 323.63601 GiB traffic/mo on average. Now, my questions (respectively thoughts for discussion) would be: 1. What would you assume to be the reason for it? I mean this is a calculated average through 3117 relays and thus I'd say rather meaningful, i.e. the largest possible "sample" (i.e. it isn't just a few relays behaving like so). Also, looking at one of our own two test relays that is *definitely* running 24/7 - vks24949, it pretty much shows the same figures. Vnstat estimates 342.23 GiB traffic/mo for September 12 and the relay actually is configured to provide 500 GiB traffic/mo with daily accounting set up (1.461005756 ratio vs 1.544945508 ratio calculated from *.csv provided at https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html for the whole Tor network). 2. As a result of all that, I currently come to the conclusion that it could be a good practice to actually configure 1.544945508 times the traffic for both the daily accountingmax + the actual relaybandwidthrate in KiB/s to *really* utilize the BW provided by sponsors (in our very case) to the full potential. I'm looking forward to your input on this. Thanks in advance, Thomas ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Min. Bandwidth for Bridge Relay?
Hi, Thanks for the helpful replies & also the link provided make it very clear. I will go ahead with my bridge relay. On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 08:17:01PM +0200, Sebastian G. wrote: >> > Tor documentation suggests as little as 20 KB/s can be used to run a tor >> > relay but this seems to be a very low badwidth rate. >> >> As far as I know there were some changes that only with 30 KB/s will see >> something one would call traffic. > > Yes -- but that's only for public relays. > >> Bridges serve a different purpose than "normal" relays. Bridges are used >> to get around censors (or not being "seen" as connecting to the Tor >> network on first glance) where people are happy to reach the website >> they wanted to visit. It's not about pushing large amounts of bandwidth >> back an forth, it's more about providing access to Tor and therefor the >> rest of the Internet. > > Right. I think a 50KB/s bridge is still useful. > > See also https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#RelayOrBridge > > --Roger > > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > 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
Re: [tor-relays] bwadv vs bwhist + implications
> hello there! > very interesting information you shared here, thank you. > while i dont have any further information to rely on, > i would still like to share a few simple thoughts. > You're welcome. > lets assume for a second that there are no errors in the code and that Tor > is not using a significantly less than optimal network topology. > > i would argue against adjusting the traffic limit as you suggested, for > the > following reasons: > -pending more data, this ratio might arbitrarily change at any point in > time, > causing either under utilization of the network. which is what you have > set > out to prevent. > or over utilization which will cause troubles to the relay admins, > like throttling by providers. > I clearly see where you're coming from. While I *certainly* do not propose a large-scale adjustment in relay configurations (that isn't my incentive actually), I still seriously think about doing the adjustments - certainly with some offset to the observed figures to address potential over-utilization - for our very own relays. We're looking forward to receive some sponsored VPS(s) that we would like to dedicate/contribute to the Tor network and I'm somehow concerned, i.e. think it's unfortunate, that - expectedly - 1/3 of our monthly traffic limit(s) wouldn't be used after all. That said, please have a brief look at https://metrics.torproject.org/bandwidth.png?start=2010-09-19&dpi=72&end=2012-09-19 - i.e. a two-year bwadv vs bwhist sample of the whole Tor network. It actually shows a rather significant trend of the "1/3 bwadv vs bwhist discrepancy" I observed previously. > -its important to have more capacity then needed, this allows better > stability and is helpful with dealing with sudden increases in Tor use, a > somewhat common event, > Same here. I wouldn't want to argue against your assumptions as they - from a general/common-sense perspective - make perfect sense. Still, looking at the two-year sample graph, I cannot really see such a network behavior, i.e. sub-samples where the gap between bwadv vs bwhist would be significantly lower at times. > of course, this is not to take away anything from your observation and > initiative. > who knows, you might have found a serious problem with the network. > I don't think there's a serious problem with the network. I just would like to ask the list for the actual reasoning of the, from my perspective rather *large*, discrepancy. You named three (actually two) things: 1. under-/over-utilization: the trend seems to be pretty constant and with some offset calculated in, I would look forward to avoid over-utilization (just for our own initiative certainly) and thus potential throttling by providers for our very own contribution to the network. 2. adjustments to peak traffic: While I totally understand the argument, I just can't see that happening (at least) within the last two years looking at the sample graph. thanks a lot for your feedback! Please don't get me wrong counter-arguing. I'm just considering opportunities for our own initiative and clearly see the general validity of your argumentation. Also I wouldn't want to exclude the possibility that I'm missing something important here and would like to ask everyone concerned to tell me where my (potential) misconception actually is ;-) Cheers, Thomas > thanks > ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
