hehe, thanks :)
I've also checked this but my ip was reachable from my test ips.
I've now checked it with host-tracker dot com and told it my server hoster.
They now have fixed the problem.
- Christian
2013/9/19 Roger Dingledine
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Christian Dietrich w
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Christian Dietrich wrote:
> Now my problem is that tor relay #2 generates almost no traffic.
>
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/myTOR
>
> Log Relay #2:
> Circuit handshake stats since last time: 63/63 TAP, 1/1 NTor.
> Heartbeat: Tor's up
If you look at #2 here:
https://metrics.torproject.org/relay-search.html?search=72227B12964210DE79DD6413AF8BB39DE93C4C8C
it says "Unmeasured=1". #1 does not have that. So I guess the dirauths
have not gotten around to measure the real bandwidth of #2. It's still
in "phase one" or "phase two" accord
Weird that #1 has the stable flag and #2 don't then.
"Stable" -- A router is 'Stable' if it is active, and either its
Weighted MTBF is at least the median for known active routers or its
Weighted MTBF corresponds to at least 7 days."
The above suggests that #1 has been known to the dirauths for a w
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:41:17 +0200
Christian Dietrich allegedly wrote:
> Thanks, but both relays have been started at the same time.
> Due to the fact that they also have the same configuration,
> both should offer up to 1 gigabit/s bandwidth.
>
> "RelayBandwidthRate 125 MBytes
> RelayBandwidthB
Your #2 relay is only advertising 83.96 KB/s so it's no surprise it gets
low traffic.
Can it be that #1 is an old relay and #2 is relatively new? If #2 is new
it needs time to ramp up traffic:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay
On 2013-09-18 18:57, Christian Dietrich wrote:
