> On 3 Jan 2017, at 17:38, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @teor >> I think you are talking about a different network, which is not Tor as > currently designed, implemented, and deployed. >> In particular, how do you get decent throughput, reliability, and low- > latency out of tens of thousands of devices? >> This is an open research problem, which the Tor design does not solve. > > Sorry for being thick-headed but > > 1. I do not see the connection between the latency and the number of relays. > However many relays there are in the pool, there always will be 3 relays > (or so) per circuit.
Many small relays will have higher average latency. They are further apart, and their interconnections are poorer. Bandwidth also affects latency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth-delay_product The network overheads are also greater, which reduces capacity and latency. (More relays means more connections and larger directory documents.) > 2. I also do not see the problem with throughput and latency. If the relay > is small, it should be used in accordance with its capacity, which is > reported in consensus. Many small relays should increase the probability of > finding one that has spare bandwidth (my residential relay is, for example, > idle 93% of the time despite having decent ultra-stable 153 KB/s bandwidth > and static IP); Perhaps it can't handle as much tor traffic as you think. In the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe the 5 tor bandwidth authorities are measuring reliably, and your relay is not able to reliably sustain much tor traffic. > 3. I do not see the problem of reliability. Reliability is easily measured > and reported. The same relay is VERY reliable - totally stable for weeks, > yet still under-used only because it is small. Perhaps your relay is not as reliable as you think. > 4. I do not see why the current design of Tor prevents using more relays. I > do not believe the current design is limited by design in the number of > relays it can support. This was answered in the thread: more relays means more directory overhead. T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
