Roger Dingledine arma at mit.edu Mon Jul 23 18:58:54 UTC 2012 [snip] >At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better >load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can >handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay >diversity: on today's network, clients choose one of the fastest 5 exit >relays around 25-30% of the time, and 80% of their choices come from a >pool of 40-50 relays. [snip]
>From what I see on the TorStatus pages (torstatus.all.de, blutmagie.de) about >a third of the roughly 3000 relays listed are at or below 64KB/sec of >demonstrated bandwidth. No doubt some of these are soon-to-be-high-bandwidth >servers that are just ramping up, and some are nodes having transitory >networking problems. It seems reasonable to assume, though, that most of >these low-bandwidth nodes are intentionally low-bandwidth, perhaps on the >basis of the Tor doc stating a 20KB/sec minimum. With "80% of their choices come from a pool of 40-50 relays" that leaves a 20% chance for the remaining 2950 nodes. A case for low-bandwidth nodes can be made as a means to dissuade anticipated routing (due to pool size), but it seems from the stats quoted above that there is little chance that 2000+ of these 3000 nodes will ever carry Tor traffic, and thus can be ignored for purposes of traffic analysis. Is there any justification for a low-bandwidth Tor node? And if so, what is the practical minimum bandwidth needed to actually see any traffic? _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
