Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-16 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 12-03-14 22:17, Kostas Jakeliunas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Udo, did you mean 1d1dnt3d1th3c0nf1g (one "t" less somewhere in the middle > there..) > (I just searched for "1d1dnt", which will cover 1d1dnt3d1th3c0nf1g) Indeed. Traffic appears to be here

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-12 Thread Kostas Jakeliunas
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:58:15AM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > > On 11-03-14 18:36, Roger Dingledine wrote: > > >> The line got upgraded and I allowed more tor bandwidth. (over 100 > KB/s) > > >> Still the traffic is absent. > > >

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-12 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:58:15AM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > On 11-03-14 18:36, Roger Dingledine wrote: > >> The line got upgraded and I allowed more tor bandwidth. (over 100 KB/s) > >> Still the traffic is absent. > >> Why? > > > > Which relay is this? > > 1d1dnt3d1tth3c0nf1g > > Other

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-12 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 12-03-14 10:58, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > On 11-03-14 18:36, Roger Dingledine wrote: >>> The line got upgraded and I allowed more tor bandwidth. (over 100 KB/s) >>> Still the traffic is absent. >>> Why? >> >> Which relay is this? > > 1d1dnt3d1th3c0nf1g > > Other tor status sites list it as F

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-12 Thread Martin Kepplinger
Am 2014-03-12 09:04, schrieb Udo van den Heuvel: > On 11-03-14 18:36, Roger Dingledine wrote: >>> The line got upgraded and I allowed more tor bandwidth. (over 100 KB/s) >>> Still the traffic is absent. >>> Why? >> >> Which relay is this? > > The main reason is perhaps that the node is not recogni

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-12 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 11-03-14 18:36, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> The line got upgraded and I allowed more tor bandwidth. (over 100 KB/s) >> Still the traffic is absent. >> Why? > > Which relay is this? 1d1dnt3d1tth3c0nf1g Other tor status sites list it as Fast, though... Udo -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-12 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 11-03-14 18:36, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> The line got upgraded and I allowed more tor bandwidth. (over 100 KB/s) >> Still the traffic is absent. >> Why? > > Which relay is this? The main reason is perhaps that the node is not recognised as Fast. After checking the blutmagie status it shows n

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-11 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 15-12-12 17:53, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: >> First, thanks for running a relay. A 32KB relay is still plenty >> valid. ssh, irc, instant messenger, most web browsing, and the operate >> just fine within 32KB/s bandwidth. >> >> For those with a networking background, this is 256 Kbps. This is sti

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2014-03-11 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:08:43PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > On 15-12-12 17:53, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > >> First, thanks for running a relay. A 32KB relay is still plenty > >> valid. ssh, irc, instant messenger, most web browsing, and the operate > >> just fine within 32KB/s bandwidth.

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-12-15 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 2012-12-15 13:57, and...@torproject.is wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:29:35PM +0100, udo...@xs4all.nl wrote 0.8K bytes > in 0 lines about: > : Thanks, but that is not an option. > : So I can switch off this node? > > First, thanks for running a relay. A 32KB relay is still plenty > valid.

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-12-15 Thread andrew
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:29:35PM +0100, udo...@xs4all.nl wrote 0.8K bytes in 0 lines about: : Thanks, but that is not an option. : So I can switch off this node? First, thanks for running a relay. A 32KB relay is still plenty valid. ssh, irc, instant messenger, most web browsing, and the operat

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-12-15 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 2012-12-15 10:41, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> Traffic is down again. >> >> I have 'BandwidthRate 32 KB' and that worked but not any longer? >> What is wrong? > > The directory authorities assign the Fast flag to the top 7/8s of > relays by bandwidth: > https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/b

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-12-15 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:24:51AM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > On 2012-08-15 15:16, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > >> So if you have less than 32KB/s of bandwidthrate, you won't get > >> the Fast flag, and basically all the clients will ignore you. > > > > So there was a change in this mechani

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-12-15 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 2012-08-15 15:16, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: >> So if you have less than 32KB/s of bandwidthrate, you won't get >> the Fast flag, and basically all the clients will ignore you. > > So there was a change in this mechanism? > I'll see if I can adapt the config to that... See http://pindarots.xs4a

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-08-15 Thread Udo van den Heuvel
On 2012-08-14 22:17, Roger Dingledine wrote: > So if you have less than 32KB/s of bandwidthrate, you won't get > the Fast flag, and basically all the clients will ignore you. So there was a change in this mechanism? I'll see if I can adapt the config to that... Kind regards, Udo

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-08-14 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:06:12AM -0700, Damian Johnson wrote: > > BandwidthRate is 20 KB > > That is the very minimum bandwidth rate. Circuits are picked > heuristically based on the available bandwidth so by setting it to > such a tiny value you'll be largely unused. Actually, it's lower than

Re: [tor-talk] traffic down

2012-08-14 Thread Damian Johnson
> BandwidthRate is 20 KB That is the very minimum bandwidth rate. Circuits are picked heuristically based on the available bandwidth so by setting it to such a tiny value you'll be largely unused. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org h