> Bridge relays . . .
Isis,
Thank you very much for your
description of how it works and the
references to the specifications.
More and more I've come to realize
one should start there.
>> It just popped to 700KB, presumably because
>> I used it to browse and then download
>> the TBB bundle as
I allowed the bridge bandwidth decay
over a couple of days back to 8KBbyte,
which seems to be the floor. "Fast"
flag was dropped.
After about a day that way, the bridge/relay
daemon started running an occasional
"bandwidth self-test", the rate went
up to 60KB and the "fast" flag returned.
Appear
starlight.201...@binnacle.cx transcribed 0.5K bytes:
> Whoa wow. . .
>
Bridge relays conduct both bandwidth and reachability self-tests. (See ยง2.1.3
of torspec.git/path-spec.txt.) The Bridge then includes its self-measured
bandwidth as the bandwidth-observed value on the "bandwidth" line of its
At 13:52 1/5/2015 +0100, you wrote:
>That's what 'we' found out now :-)
I figured it out.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
That's what 'we' found out now :-)
Am 05.01.2015 um 13:50 schrieb starlight.201...@binnacle.cx:
> Apparently not.
>
> At 13:25 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>> I meant treated like relays in relation to traffic ...
> ___
> tor-relays m
Apparently not.
At 13:25 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>I meant treated like relays in relation to traffic ...
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relay
Hello list,
I'm new to this but got my node up and running on a MK802 arm device.
However, tor-arm keep complaining about missing history.
The exact message is:
"Read the last day of bandwidth history from the state file (9 minutes is
missing)"
Does anyone know why this is but more important, h
I meant treated like relays in relation to traffic ...
Am 05.01.2015 um 13:22 schrieb starlight.201...@binnacle.cx:
> Unquestionably Bridges are different.
>
> Suggest you read about it--lots of info
> to be found.
>
>
>
> At 13:08 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>> I know. That's
Unquestionably Bridges are different.
Suggest you read about it--lots of info
to be found.
At 13:08 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>I know. That's why I said that I don't have that much knowledge
>about
>bridges but think that they are treated like relays.
>
>Am 05.01.2015 um
I know. That's why I said that I don't have that much knowledge about
bridges but think that they are treated like relays.
Am 05.01.2015 um 12:18 schrieb starlight.201...@binnacle.cx:
> BTW you are running normal Tor public relay
> rather than a Bridge.
>
>
> At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1
BTW you are running normal Tor public relay
rather than a Bridge.
At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.
Bridge behavior is decidedly different than
normal relay behavior--I've been running one
for a year.
Normal relays get poked fairly often by
the four "BWAuth" bandwidth authorities
and bandwidth starts at 20KB and rises
steadily from the get-go.
I suppose the bandwidth calculation is
passive in b
I don't have that much knowledge on bridges, but I think it's the same
as with relays: The speed increases after some time.
I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309 and as you can see
from the graphs the speed increased slowly after the start. On saturday
I increased the advertised ban
Whoa wow. . .
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because
I used it for to browse and then download
the TBB bundle as a test.
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement
for a bridge is strictly passive? Presumably
that also means that it is not used as
a criteria for dissemination?
___
At 11:49 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>What's the fingerprint of your bridge or what's the uptime?
>When I setup my relay the shown bandwidth was first low and
>increased since then to full declared speed.
Bridge is A411C021A7B95F340485A9CCE34187025193DEF6
Uptime is two+ days
What's the fingerprint of your bridge or what's the uptime?
When I setup my relay the shown bandwidth was first low and increased
since then to full declared speed.
~Josef
Am 05.01.2015 um 11:39 schrieb starlight.201...@binnacle.cx:
> Oops. The "rate limit" I quoted
> is actually the limit on th
Oops. The "rate limit" I quoted
is actually the limit on the DOCSIS
modem here, not on the VPS. Probably
not 'iptables' traffic shaping
after all.
Using 'speedtest_cli.py' the max rate
has been showing 100 Mbits/sec, but
I discount that because the speedtest
node appears to reside in the same
da
Hello,
Just setup a new bridge running 0.2.6.1-alpha
and it's working fine.
The bridge is running in a Linux container
VPS and appears to have an iptables
traffic-shaped bandwidth limit of 400KB.
Can browse and download files through
it with decent performance using obfs4.
However self-measureme
18 matches
Mail list logo
