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 while (since it got stable) and #2 either restarts a lot or has not been around for long.
On 2013-09-18 20:41, Christian Dietrich 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 > RelayBandwidthBurst 125 MBytes" > > Both relays are exactly the same, except for the IPv4 adress. > >> 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: >>> Hey there, >>> >>> I'm currently running two tor (non-exit) relays on one host machine. >>> "000000000000myTOR1" and "000000000000myTOR2". >>> Now my problem is that tor relay #2 generates almost no traffic. >>> >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/000000000000myTOR >>> >>> Log Relay #1: >>> Circuit handshake stats since last time: 1566234/14743525 TAP, >>> 10428/10433 NTor. >>> Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 7 days 6:00 hours, with 56008 circuits >>> open. I've sent 2167.46 GB and received 1567.97 GB. >>> >>> Log Relay #2: >>> Circuit handshake stats since last time: 63/63 TAP, 1/1 NTor. >>> Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 7 days 6:00 hours, with 4 circuits open. >>> I've sent 1.58 GB and received 844.66 MB. >>> >>> Both have the same binary and configuration (except incoming/outgoing >>> IPv4). I've also tried to switch from >>> "fully self compiled debian, with custom kernel, and own tor binary" >>> to "Out of the Box Ubuntu LTS, with torproject tor package" >>> .. without any improvement. Both relays works as expected. >>> >>> OT: for my opinion avg 150 mbit/s (99% done by node #1) is too less >>> for an Ivy-Bridge Based Xeon Quad Core (/w HT) on an unshared gigabit >>> line. >>> Apart from the fact that multithread support is really missing. >>> >>> Can anyone give me a hint, or am i just too stupid? Thanks ;) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tor-relays mailing list >>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
