> On 3 Oct 2015, at 19:09, Dhalgren Tor <dhalgren....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Was going to wait a few days before reporting back, but early results > are decisive. > > The overload situation continued to worsen over a two-day period, with > consensus weight continuing to rise despite the relay often running in > a state of extreme overload and performing its exit function quite > terribly. > ... > The bandwidth measurement system now looks like a secondary issue. > The big problem is that Tor daemon bandwidth throttling sucks and > should be avoided in favor of Linux kernel rate-limiting where actual > bandwidth exceeds bandwidth allocated to Tor, whatever the motivation. > TCP is much better at dealing with congestion than the relay internal > limit-rate logic. …
You might find Rob Jansen's KIST paper interesting reading - it is about making Tor aware of kernel buffers. (Currently, Tor doesn’t know what happens after it writes data to the socket.) http://www.robgjansen.com/publications/kist-sec2014.pdf <http://www.robgjansen.com/publications/kist-sec2014.pdf> Tim Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B teor at blah dot im OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
