-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everybody,
since this botnet started flooding Tor, my Tor relay Bazinga
($196832C61F30E9D6D179393C9AED4E47FD29796B) has been experiencing some
issues.
Previously, it was relaying 100 Mbit/s for a few months without problem.
When the botnet came
Many people set up new fast relays and then wonder why their bandwidth
is not fully loaded instantly. In this post I'll walk you through the
lifecycle of a new fast non-exit relay, since Tor's bandwidth estimation
and load balancing has gotten much more complicated in recent years.
https://blog.to
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Stephan wrote:
> On 11.09.2013 10:05, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
> >Sep 10 08:59:40.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new
> >connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit
> >now.
>
> I'm just taking a wild gues
On 11.09.2013 10:05, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
Sep 10 08:59:40.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new
connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit
now.
I'm just taking a wild guess here, because I had similar symptoms: that
log message doesn't see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/2013 12:37 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> In my case I use 'monit' to monitor my server and the running
>> services - including tor. Once in a while the automated TCP check
>> on either the OR-Port or the DIR-Port failed which resulted in
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/2013 12:34 PM, Stephan wrote:
> I'm just taking a wild guess here, because I had similar symptoms:
> that log message doesn't seem to be a crash but a regular shutdown.
> In my case I use 'monit' to monitor my server and the running
> services
On 11.09.2013 13:33, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
Could you post the corresponding line(s) in your monitrc?
Of course. I use the default of "set daemon 120", so tor is checked once
every 120 seconds ('one cycle'). The tor specific part of the
configuration is this:
if failed host 127.
TLDR: what do people to do get the max throughput through their boxes?
Hi,
This might be more tor-dev related (due to the Tor internals, eg why it
does not use multiple CPU cores effectively etc), but is likely a bit
more appropriate here as there are people who are able to get a lot of
performan
As a heads-up, this fixed my recursive DNS to world
issue while ability to serve authoritative domains
was not impaired. Thank you, t...@t-3.net
Running your own DNS is a good idea for those who
got too used to all these 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 things.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:33:23AM -0400, t...@
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/2013 02:18 PM, Stephan wrote:
> On 11.09.2013 13:33, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
>> Could you post the corresponding line(s) in your monitrc?
>
> Of course. I use the default of "set daemon 120", so tor is checked
> once every 120 seconds
Hi Jeroen,
On 09/11/2013 02:21 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> What else is there to tune except for maybe running multiple Tor nodes
> on the same box? Which would require it to use multiple IPs right as one
> can only run 2 nodes on the same IP I understand.
You will start to see error messages in y
On 11.09.2013 16:48, Moritz Bartl wrote:
and so far every ISP was able to provide more than one IP.
On a side note:
At least one big hosting provider in Germany (Hetzner) has started to
charge money for additional ipv4 addresses. Ipv6 addresses on the other
hand are included in sufficient nu
Hi,
Is the 'exit' flag given to a Tor node which only allows exit to a
certain prefix?
If yes, what kind of effect does that have on path selection, will it
only be chosen for exit'ing to that prefix and not be used as a relay?
Greets,
Jeroen
___
tor-
On 2013-09-11 16:48 , Moritz Bartl wrote:
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> On 09/11/2013 02:21 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> What else is there to tune except for maybe running multiple Tor nodes
>> on the same box? Which would require it to use multiple IPs right as one
>> can only run 2 nodes on the same IP I und
On 2013-09-11 18:20 , Jesse Victors wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, newcomer here.
>
> I'm behind very fast connection (11.5 MB/sec down, 7.5 MB/sec up)
(Most folks would just call that 100mbit, that is if your MB is
MegaByte, hence why 11.5 MiB/s would be more accurate).
> thought that the Tor netw
On 09/11/2013 07:20 PM, Jesse Victors wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, newcomer here.
>
> I'm behind very fast connection (11.5 MB/sec down, 7.5 MB/sec up)
> and I thought that the Tor network could benefit from my
> connection, especially since it's apparently been under high load
> recently. Per the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello everyone, newcomer here.
I'm behind very fast connection (11.5 MB/sec down, 7.5 MB/sec up) and I
thought that the Tor network could benefit from my connection,
especially since it's apparently been under high load recently. Per the
latest blo
> (Most folks would just call that 100mbit, that is if your MB is
> MegaByte, hence why 11.5 MiB/s would be more accurate).
Yes, it is megabytes/sec, according to Speedtest.net. Most sysadmins
would say 91.74 mbit down, 60.23 mbit up, (which is as you say basically
100 mbit) but since the Tor measu
I sent the following warning to the listed e-mail address of 14 of the 19
Tor nodes I found that accepted connections on port 8118, some of which
bounced.
If any of you run or know how to get in touch with the operators of the
nodes DaJoker, FawkesSwissBlade, LUDICROUS2U, RaspberryPI, pangu,
mous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> Is the 'exit' flag given to a Tor node which only allows exit to a
> certain prefix?
Depents on the prefix size and allowed ports.
"
"Exit" -- A router is called an 'Exit' iff it allows exits to at
least two of the ports 80, 443, and 6667 and
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10:07AM -0600, Jesse Victors wrote:
> Do I have to maintain an uptime of ~70 days to see fully utilization
> then? This relay is on a personal computer with a static IP, so it isn't
> on a dedicated server or anything like that. Usually my uptime is around
> several weeks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Roger Dingledine:
> Hi folks,
>
> I just released 0.2.4.17-rc. Hopefully there will be debs of it
> soon.
[snip]
> Please consider upgrading. If you do, though, please also keep an
> eye on it -- it's possible we introduced some new bugs and the
> n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
This is quite a story - and I've found 0.2.4.x on the Pi to not have
nearly the problems of its predecessor (and .17-rc to be a lot better
than .16-rc)...
Dan Staples:
> Just to add my experiences to the mix:
>
[snip]
>
> Finally, I noticed that b
23 matches
Mail list logo
