to end up somewhere with poor peering/routing for Tor?
On Tuesday, February 25th, 2025 at 9:57 PM, Tor at 1AEO via tor-relays
wrote:
> Okay - makes sense on up to 2 Tor relays per physical core with the goal of
> not wasting CPU cycles, given the fluctuations of Tor and the expensive
>
Okay - makes sense on up to 2 Tor relays per physical core with the goal of not
wasting CPU cycles, given the fluctuations of Tor and the expensive hardware.
No, don't have all the network capacity covered and agree everything is costly.
For 10 Gbps unmetered, not many options under $600/mo comf
>
>
> On Saturday, 22 February 2025 06:49 Tor at 1AEO via tor-relays wrote:
>
> > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.101.
> > > > We are 5 relay orgs sharing a /24. would be nice if you share the subnet
> > > > with 1-2 othe
>> https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.101.
>> We are 5 relay orgs sharing a /24. would be nice if you share the subnet
>> with 1-2 other relay operators.
Logistically, how do you or how would you recommend to share a /24 across more
than 1 organization?
Lots of ideas / questio
Also interested in this thread and efforts.
Plan to do your suggestion on 80 core and 128 core Tor server node tests. Will
work on posting back here too.
BGP plan to keep separate on router to avoid using Tor server resources.
Does DNS have similar resource concerns as BGP tables? If so, what's
