Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
thus Paul Menzel spake: Dear Thomas, Am Mittwoch, den 13.10.2010, 10:31 -0400 schrieb Thomas S. Benjamin: Is your relay running on a virtual machine (V-colo)? Yes, the relay is running on a virtual machine. If so, check your user beancounters, they may show you which resources are being exhausted. Xen is used. So I cannot check those entries, but according to the FAQ, this should not be a problem [1]. I also checked with `top` on Dom0 and DomU and the ressources are barley used. Xen doesn't use beancounters, they're used in OpenVZ, e.g. You should be able to find out lack of resources of your Dom0 and DomU by using the 'usualy' utilities and `xentop', e.g. Also, do you find any messages in your log? The log just contains the normal `[NOTICE]` messages. Maybe the problem resides outside of what he can see, maybe there's traffic shaping/accounting with limiting after a certain useage taking place? Thanks, Paul Best, Timo [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2010/msg00155.html [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#CanIrunaTorrelayfrommyvirtualserveraccount *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Donnerstag, den 14.10.2010, 08:32 +0200 schrieb Timo Schoeler: thus Paul Menzel spake: Am Mittwoch, den 13.10.2010, 10:31 -0400 schrieb Thomas S. Benjamin: Is your relay running on a virtual machine (V-colo)? Yes, the relay is running on a virtual machine. If so, check your user beancounters, they may show you which resources are being exhausted. Xen is used. So I cannot check those entries, but according to the FAQ, this should not be a problem [1]. I also checked with `top` on Dom0 and DomU and the ressources are barley used. Xen doesn't use beancounters, they're used in OpenVZ, e.g. You should be able to find out lack of resources of your Dom0 and DomU by using the 'usualy' utilities and `xentop', e.g. I did not know about `xentop`. Thank you! But it also show that not all resources are used. Also, do you find any messages in your log? The log just contains the normal `[NOTICE]` messages. Maybe the problem resides outside of what he can see, maybe there's traffic shaping/accounting with limiting after a certain useage taking place? There is, but that limit has not been reached yet. Does anyone knowledgeable know, how I could trick the Tor rebalancing algorithms? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2010/msg00155.html [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#CanIrunaTorrelayfrommyvirtualserveraccount signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Tor folks, I am still seeing the same problem [1]. In April it used the whole limit of 1 TB and hibernated after the limit was reached, but afterward it only came back to around 100 GB per month. Fast IT is not limiting the bandwidth in any way. I tested that. CPU and memory are not utilized completely either. Here is the output from arm. arm - anonymisierungsdienst (Linux...) Tor 0.2.1.26 (recommended) anonymisierungsdien - 0.0.0.0:9090, Dir Port: 80, Control Port (open): 9051 cpu: 0.5%mem: 92 MB (13.0%) pid: 1186uptime: 14-15:11:11 fingerprint: B3EC1BF5D7F7D724BA634D91BE5D22D2D7A70160 flags: Exit, Fast, Guard, Named, Running, Stable, Valid I only have AccountingMax 500 GB set in `/etc/tor/torrc`. So it must be a Tor problem. As you can see from the graphs the bandwidth usage goes up and down quite often. What might be the reason? Besides it is still below the available 100 Mbit/s. So does rebalancing still have problems as indicated in Andrew’s answer [3]? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2010/msg00010.html [2] http://www.atagar.com/arm/ [3] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2010/msg00140.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Not sure, but mine goes up and down all the time. I am not on a allocation or accounting like you, but I check several times a day generally, but at least once a day the bandwidth usage is different than before. It may still be re-balancing, but I also notice that the mode nodes that are running, the lower usage of bandwidth. The less nodes running, my bandwidth has more usage. Just a thought. Jon On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Dear Tor folks, I am still seeing the same problem [1]. In April it used the whole limit of 1 TB and hibernated after the limit was reached, but afterward it only came back to around 100 GB per month. Fast IT is not limiting the bandwidth in any way. I tested that. CPU and memory are not utilized completely either. Here is the output from arm. arm - anonymisierungsdienst (Linux...) Tor 0.2.1.26 (recommended) anonymisierungsdien - 0.0.0.0:9090, Dir Port: 80, Control Port (open): 9051 cpu: 0.5% mem: 92 MB (13.0%) pid: 1186 uptime: 14-15:11:11 fingerprint: B3EC1BF5D7F7D724BA634D91BE5D22D2D7A70160 flags: Exit, Fast, Guard, Named, Running, Stable, Valid I only have AccountingMax 500 GB set in `/etc/tor/torrc`. So it must be a Tor problem. As you can see from the graphs the bandwidth usage goes up and down quite often. What might be the reason? Besides it is still below the available 100 Mbit/s. So does rebalancing still have problems as indicated in Andrew’s answer [3]? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2010/msg00010.html [2] http://www.atagar.com/arm/ [3] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2010/msg00140.html *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Paul, Is your relay running on a virtual machine (V-colo)? If so, check your user beancounters, they may show you which resources are being exhausted. Also, do you find any messages in your log? On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Dear Tor folks, I am still seeing the same problem [1]. In April it used the whole limit of 1 TB and hibernated after the limit was reached, but afterward it only came back to around 100 GB per month. Fast IT is not limiting the bandwidth in any way. I tested that. CPU and memory are not utilized completely either. Here is the output from arm. arm - anonymisierungsdienst (Linux...) Tor 0.2.1.26 (recommended) anonymisierungsdien - 0.0.0.0:9090, Dir Port: 80, Control Port (open): 9051 cpu: 0.5% mem: 92 MB (13.0%) pid: 1186 uptime: 14-15:11:11 fingerprint: B3EC1BF5D7F7D724BA634D91BE5D22D2D7A70160 flags: Exit, Fast, Guard, Named, Running, Stable, Valid I only have AccountingMax 500 GB set in `/etc/tor/torrc`. So it must be a Tor problem. As you can see from the graphs the bandwidth usage goes up and down quite often. What might be the reason? Besides it is still below the available 100 Mbit/s. So does rebalancing still have problems as indicated in Andrew’s answer [3]? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2010/msg00010.html [2] http://www.atagar.com/arm/ [3] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2010/msg00140.html -- Sincerely Yours, ---Thomas S. Benjamin *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Thomas, Am Mittwoch, den 13.10.2010, 10:31 -0400 schrieb Thomas S. Benjamin: Is your relay running on a virtual machine (V-colo)? Yes, the relay is running on a virtual machine. If so, check your user beancounters, they may show you which resources are being exhausted. Xen is used. So I cannot check those entries, but according to the FAQ, this should not be a problem [1]. I also checked with `top` on Dom0 and DomU and the ressources are barley used. Also, do you find any messages in your log? The log just contains the normal `[NOTICE]` messages. Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2010/msg00155.html [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#CanIrunaTorrelayfrommyvirtualserveraccount signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [solved] Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 13:57 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Freitag, den 19.03.2010, 22:08 -0400 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:43:37PM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.0K bytes in 37 lines about: : I setup a tor relay by just setting : orport, dirport, and nickname and letting it run. It's 0.2.2.9-alpha. : We'll see what happens. : : Do you have any results yet? Yes, the ISP traffic shaped me into 300KB/s. But Tor dutifully fills that up. It's a non-exit relay named hugs, fingerprint is E5CE54C14A41D829B6EBA77724EA27D88337E211. So to rule the last thing out before to blame it on Tor, namely that the ISP is limiting the bandwidth, can somebody point me to a way on how to check the bandwidth on different ports. Ok, it looks like they do not limit the bandwidth. Since April 13th traffic increased quite a lot [1]. So it looks like it just took longer to get my exit node propagated to the network. Thanks, Paul [1] http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [solved] Full bandwidth is not used.
On 04/17/2010 07:58 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: Since April 13th traffic increased quite a lot [1]. So it looks like it just took longer to get my exit node propagated to the network. It appears to have been in the network, not just utilized to the fullest. We've been trying new things to rebalance and better utilize the relays we have. See the fine thread on tor-relays for the more detailed discussion, http://archives.seul.org/tor/relays/Apr-2010/msg00043.html -- Andrew Lewman The Tor Project pgp 0x31B0974B Website: https://www.torproject.org/ Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ Identi.ca: torproject *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Freitag, den 19.03.2010, 22:08 -0400 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:43:37PM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.0K bytes in 37 lines about: : I setup a tor relay by just setting : orport, dirport, and nickname and letting it run. It's 0.2.2.9-alpha. : We'll see what happens. : : Do you have any results yet? Yes, the ISP traffic shaped me into 300KB/s. But Tor dutifully fills that up. It's a non-exit relay named hugs, fingerprint is E5CE54C14A41D829B6EBA77724EA27D88337E211. So to rule the last thing out before to blame it on Tor, namely that the ISP is limiting the bandwidth, can somebody point me to a way on how to check the bandwidth on different ports. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:03 +0100 Paul Menzel
paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
My apologies for letting this sit unanswered for so long. I was tied
up in reconfiguring several disk drives where free work space was cramped
and inconveniently located for some of the moves. Now I'm just starting to
go through nearly two weeks' accumulation of email. Agghhh...
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 19:31 -0600 schrieb Scott Bennett:
Well, as I've pointed out in the past, the values in cached-consensu=
s=20
do *not* accurately reflect either the traffic load that your relay has
carried or the traffic capacity of your relay. They are bogus a priori a=
nd
should be ignored in attempting to ascertain your relay's actual loads.
The sad thing is that recent versions of tor clients now use the consensu=
s
values for designing routes for circuits they will build, so the bogus
values produce load distortions throughout the tor network. However, tha=
t
fact has no bearing upon the numbers you're looking for.
If you want to know the loads that your relay has carried, you shoul=
d
look at the byte counts for reads and writes in the extrainfo documents o=
r,
alternatively, the state file. (The difficulty with using the state file
is that it gets updated everytime construction of a new circuit succeeds,
so the values for the most recent time periods change frequently and at
rather unpredictable intervals. If you always ignore the most recent tim=
e
period for read and for writes, then the state file becomes more usable
for this purpose.) If, OTOH, you want to know the peak 10-second burst
rate, then the value to trust is the one in your relay's descriptors that
appear in the cached-descriptors{,.new} files.
Thank you for your response. I kept that in mind and compared it to the
values in `/var/lib/tor/state` and they are around the same and maybe
even lower. I also use tools like `nload` to verify the network load.
You can also see bandwidth graphs at [2].
I am a little confused why you are responding nitpicking at the values I
give although I think it was confirmed in the whole thread that the full
bandwidth is not used at all.
I'm sorry that my point wasn't made clearly enough. IIRC, you were
wondering why the consensus values didn't match what you were seeing your
router do. (You've deleted the pertinent portion of the message, so I'm
just going by memory here.) The point I was attempting to make is that
there is no good reason to expect to see any close relationship between
the consensus value and what your router does.
Your router may very well have also had some real problem, but the
consensus is not a useful tool for diagnosing throughput capacity problems.
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**
* Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu *
**
* A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army. *
*-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 *
**
***
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with
unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: […] I setup a tor relay by just setting orport, dirport, and nickname and letting it run. It's 0.2.2.9-alpha. We'll see what happens. Do you have any results yet? Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:43:37PM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.0K bytes in 37 lines about: : I setup a tor relay by just setting : orport, dirport, and nickname and letting it run. It's 0.2.2.9-alpha. : We'll see what happens. : : Do you have any results yet? Yes, the ISP traffic shaped me into 300KB/s. But Tor dutifully fills that up. It's a non-exit relay named hugs, fingerprint is E5CE54C14A41D829B6EBA77724EA27D88337E211. -- Andrew Lewman The Tor Project pgp 0x31B0974B Website: https://www.torproject.org/ Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ Identi.ca: torproject *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the following line. ExitPolicy reject *:* It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I would say, that traffic even decreased. $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSPBCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=63 $ ls -al (adapted) 384600 9. Mär 21:27 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=102 362245 9. Mär 23:15 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=90 342063 10. Mär 07:32 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=88 # (configure as non-exit relay) 356455 10. Mär 11:14 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=86 385656 10. Mär 21:16 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=81 w Bandwidth=64 390325 11. Mär 20:03 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=58 Thu Mar 11 20:21:07 UTC 2010 w Bandwidth=58 anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=52 r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=52 Do you have more ideas? Anyone? See [2]. Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jan-2010/msg00175.html [2] http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Paul, I am not savy enough to explain on the ins and outs of tor, etc. But what I can tell you, with both my servers running, I have yet reached my full bandwidth. I read someplace when I was researching on routers, that some routers actually had reduced the amt of bandwidth going thru them. ie: person was paying for 10 mbps and was only getting ( showing ) less than 5mps after going thru the router. I suspect that if your full bandwidth was being used, your system would possibly freeze cause of a burst of speed, etc., there would be no more room for more bandwidth. IMO, i don't think one would really want to be using it to the max. ex: you buy a car and want to see how it runs, so you take it out on the road and open it up as fast as it will go. To get the full usage out of the car, one would have to run it wide open, which of course could cause problems and would be hard on the car if done for any length of time. Also in another message, it was brought up that if a server is turned on and off a number of times and often, the user count of users using your bandwidth would be down until it became stable again. Time wise , if I remember right, is a 24-48 hour period. Jon On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the following line. ExitPolicy reject *:* It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I would say, that traffic even decreased. $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSPBCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=63 $ ls -al (adapted) 384600 9. Mär 21:27 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=102
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Paul Menzel wrote: It is a virtual machine ... Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? 1. On vservers there are many resource limits. Please check: 'cat /proc/user_beancounters'. 2. Have you read 'http://www.webtropia.com/home/faq.html?article=366'? I don't believe that you have reached the traffic limit, but this could be another reason. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Dienstag, den 16.03.2010, 18:51 +0100 schrieb Gitano: Paul Menzel wrote: It is a virtual machine ... Is it safe to say, that it is a client problem that they do not use my server? 1. On vservers there are many resource limits. Please check: 'cat /proc/user_beancounters'. Xen is used on the server, so I do not have that file. I checked for CPU and RAM usage and enough is available. 2. Have you read 'http://www.webtropia.com/home/faq.html?article=366'? I don't believe that you have reached the traffic limit, but this could be another reason. I knew about it. But I have not come close to that limit yet and traffic is well below that limit. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 19:31 -0600 schrieb Scott Bennett:
[…]
Well, as I've pointed out in the past, the values in cached-consensus
do *not* accurately reflect either the traffic load that your relay has
carried or the traffic capacity of your relay. They are bogus a priori and
should be ignored in attempting to ascertain your relay's actual loads.
The sad thing is that recent versions of tor clients now use the consensus
values for designing routes for circuits they will build, so the bogus
values produce load distortions throughout the tor network. However, that
fact has no bearing upon the numbers you're looking for.
If you want to know the loads that your relay has carried, you should
look at the byte counts for reads and writes in the extrainfo documents or,
alternatively, the state file. (The difficulty with using the state file
is that it gets updated everytime construction of a new circuit succeeds,
so the values for the most recent time periods change frequently and at
rather unpredictable intervals. If you always ignore the most recent time
period for read and for writes, then the state file becomes more usable
for this purpose.) If, OTOH, you want to know the peak 10-second burst
rate, then the value to trust is the one in your relay's descriptors that
appear in the cached-descriptors{,.new} files.
Thank you for your response. I kept that in mind and compared it to the
values in `/var/lib/tor/state` and they are around the same and maybe
even lower. I also use tools like `nload` to verify the network load.
You can also see bandwidth graphs at [2].
I am a little confused why you are responding nitpicking at the values I
give although I think it was confirmed in the whole thread that the full
bandwidth is not used at all.
Thanks,
Paul
[2]
http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the following line. ExitPolicy reject *:* It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I would say, that traffic even decreased. $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 $ LANG=C date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published|bandwidth' Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSPBCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=63 $ ls -al (adapted) 384600 9. Mär 21:27 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=102 362245 9. Mär 23:15 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=90 342063 10. Mär 07:32 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=88 # (configure as non-exit relay) 356455 10. Mär 11:14 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=86 385656 10. Mär 21:16 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=81 w Bandwidth=64 390325 11. Mär 20:03 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=58 Thu Mar 11 20:21:07 UTC 2010 w Bandwidth=58 anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=52 r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=52 Do you have more ideas? Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jan-2010/msg00175.html [2] http://trunk.torstatus.kgprog.com/router_detail.php?FP=b3ec1bf5d7f7d724ba634d91be5d22d2d7a70160 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:40:29 +0100 Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel:=20 Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge= .net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It = is : still below 100 KB/s. =20 What is the network configuration? =20 $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 I implemented the changes suggested by arma on IRC (due to Exit and Guard flag [1]) to configure my server as non-exit relay, so I added the following line. ExitPolicy reject *:* It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. =20 Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. =20 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 =20 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. =20 In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is =20 r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1M= PiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=3D61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,688= 1-6999 =20 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Unfortunately changing the server to a non-exit relay on 2010-03-10 09:28:25 UTC did not change anything. Although looking at my logs and the data on [2] I would say it differs a bit. According to my logs I would say, that traffic even decreased. $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep -E 'published= |bandwidth' published 2010-03-07 17:51:12 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 55006 published 2010-03-08 00:05:02 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 $ grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | grep bandwidth bandwidth 5242880 10485760 214272 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 141962 $ LANG=3DC date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | g= rep bandwidth Thu Mar 11 10:30:02 UTC 2010 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 $ LANG=3DC date grep -A 6 62.141.42.186 cached-descriptors | g= rep -E 'published|bandwidth' Fri Mar 12 09:46:43 UTC 2010 published 2010-03-10 09:28:24 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 181555 published 2010-03-11 03:28:50 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 178964 published 2010-03-11 21:29:37 bandwidth 5242880 10485760 143546 The value displayed on [2] seems to be more up to date. Here are some compiled values from `cached-consensus`. $ grep -A4 62.141.42 cached-consensus # adapted the output. r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA QvLgYWR3HuX0DKMSP= BCwzjIVpCk 2010-03-09 12:05:55 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=3D63 $ ls -al (adapted) 384600 9. M=C3=A4r 21:27 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=3D102 362245 9. M=C3=A4r 23:15 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=3D90 342063 10. M=C3=A4r 07:32 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=3D88 # (configure as non-exit relay) 356455 10. M=C3=A4r 11:14 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=3D86 385656 10. M=C3=A4r 21:16 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=3D81 w Bandwidth=3D64 390325 11. M=C3=A4r 20:03 cached-consensus w Bandwidth=3D58 Thu Mar 11 20:21:07 UTC 2010 w Bandwidth=3D58 anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnEdl= 3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=3D52 r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA BfwbPy3Xd3P2smQnE= dl3Tqp9E9I 2010-03-11 21:29:37 62.141.42.186 443 80 w Bandwidth=3D52 Do you have more ideas? Well, as I've pointed out in the past, the values in cached-consensus do *not* accurately reflect either the traffic load that your relay has carried or the traffic capacity of your relay. They are bogus a priori and should be ignored in attempting to ascertain your relay's actual loads. The sad thing is that recent versions of tor clients now use the consensus values for designing routes for circuits they will build, so the bogus values
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:40 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? $ more /etc/tor/torrc SocksPort 0 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ORPort 443 ORListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9090 Address 62.141.42.186 ContactInfo 1024D/6C0E1D58 Paul Menzel p...@gw90.de DirPort 80 # what port to advertise for directory connections DirListenAddress 0.0.0.0:9091 It is a virtual machine and connections to port 80 and 443 are forwarded by an IPtables entry in the nat table with DNAT to the virtual host. On the virtual host using IPtables ports 80 and 443 are forwarded to 9090 and 9091. Sebastian on IRC helped me to gather more data. In `cached-descriptors` I have the following. bandwidth 5242880 10485760 155910 There are more entries for my IP address when I restarted and upgraded Tor. In `cached-consensus` (from 12:28 UTC) there is r anonymisierungsdien s+wb9df31yS6Y02Rvl0i0tenAWA vyRDgH2XTP6Tn1MPiJkWE0Yk9e8 2010-03-08 18:05:07 62.141.42.186 443 80 s Exit Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid v Tor 0.2.1.23 w Bandwidth=61 p reject 25,119,135-139,445,563,1214,4661-4666,6346-6429,6699,6881-6999 and Bandwidth even decreased by 1 (from 62) compared to the value before the update (11:14 UTC). Very strange. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:21:29AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.6K bytes in 52 lines about: : I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is : still below 100 KB/s. What is the network configuration? I setup a tor relay by just setting orport, dirport, and nickname and letting it run. It's 0.2.2.9-alpha. We'll see what happens. -- Andrew Lewman The Tor Project pgp 0x31B0974B Website: https://www.torproject.org/ Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ Identi.ca: torproject *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
I now increased the RAM too and restarted the server to no avail. It is still below 100 KB/s. Am Sonntag, den 07.03.2010, 12:16 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 23:54 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 10:17 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:32:59AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.4K bytes in 39 lines about: : What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? : : I did not configure them and so the defaults are used. arm is displaying : »(cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB)«. Ok, then Tor will figure out how much bandwidth it can reliably provide. On what conditions does that depend? Do you have any pointers? Where can I look up what my Tor server is announcing to the outside what bandwidth it support? […] Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
provided bandwitdth over time in /var/lib/tor/state (was: Full bandwidth is not used.)
Am Samstag, den 06.03.2010, 02:36 -0800 schrieb Paul Campbell:
From: Marcin Kowalczyk mar...@kowalczyk-online.com
Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 7:56:39 AM
Looking at `DataDirectory/state` directly I cannot figure out how to
interpret the values. Maybe I need tot enable bandwidth accounting.
The values for BWHistoryReadValues and BWHistoryWriteValues are
sent/received bytes in 15 minutes.
So VALUE/1024/15/60 shows you your actual kb/s throughput in one
direction.
Maybe this poorly written perl script can help:
perl -ne 'next if !/BW.*Values/; @s = split; print $s[0]\n; foreach
$value (split(/,/, $s[1])) {printf %10.1f kB/s\n, $value/15/60/1024}'
/var/lib/tor/state
Thanks a lot for this.
It shows around the same values as arm on average.
Thanks,
Paul
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 23:54 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 10:17 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:32:59AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.4K bytes in 39 lines about: : What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? : : I did not configure them and so the defaults are used. arm is displaying : »(cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB)«. Ok, then Tor will figure out how much bandwidth it can reliably provide. On what conditions does that depend? If you look at your (datadirectory)/state file, it will show you how much bandwidth tor has been providing over time. I guess arm is using this or something similar to display the bandwidth usage of Tor. On average arm’s values are the same as the ones in `(datadirectory)/state`. […] Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Unfortunately the state doesn't provide a complete bandwidth history - if you check on line 1168 of src/or/rephist.c you'll see: /** How many bandwidth usage intervals do we remember? (derived) */ #define NUM_TOTALS (NUM_SECS_BW_SUM_IS_VALID/NUM_SECS_BW_SUM_INTERVAL) This is used later when writing to the state (line 1441 of the same file) - honestly I'm green enough with C that I got lost pretty quick once it started juggling smart lists and buffers around but I'll take the comments at their word ;) This is why I don't use it to populate past bandwidth data in arm. Cheers! -Damian On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 23:54 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 10:17 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:32:59AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.4K bytes in 39 lines about: : What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? : : I did not configure them and so the defaults are used. arm is displaying : »(cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB)«. Ok, then Tor will figure out how much bandwidth it can reliably provide. On what conditions does that depend? If you look at your (datadirectory)/state file, it will show you how much bandwidth tor has been providing over time. I guess arm is using this or something similar to display the bandwidth usage of Tor. On average arm’s values are the same as the ones in `(datadirectory)/state`. […] Thanks, Paul
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Looking at `DataDirectory/state` directly I cannot figure out how to interpret the values. Maybe I need tot enable bandwidth accounting. The values for BWHistoryReadValues and BWHistoryWriteValues are sent/received bytes in 15 minutes. So VALUE/1024/15/60 shows you your actual kb/s throughput in one direction. HTH *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
- Original Message
From: Marcin Kowalczyk mar...@kowalczyk-online.com
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 7:56:39 AM
Subject: Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Looking at `DataDirectory/state` directly I cannot figure out how to
interpret the values. Maybe I need tot enable bandwidth accounting.
The values for BWHistoryReadValues and BWHistoryWriteValues are
sent/received bytes in 15 minutes.
So VALUE/1024/15/60 shows you your actual kb/s throughput in one
direction.
HTH
Maybe this poorly written perl script can help:
perl -ne 'next if !/BW.*Values/; @s = split; print $s[0]\n; foreach
$value (split(/,/, $s[1])) {printf %10.1f kB/s\n, $value/15/60/1024}'
/var/lib/tor/state
Cheers
Paul C
***
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with
unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
I guess arm is using this or something similar to display the bandwidth usage of Tor. Nope, arm just gives a running total of the BW events (ie, if you restart arm the totals will revert to zero). At the moment I'm unaware of a method of getting the total bandwidth besides tallying it (though it's included in a proposal that's currently being batted around on or-dev). Cheers! -Damian On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Paul Menzel paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 10:17 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:32:59AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.4K bytes in 39 lines about: : What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? : : I did not configure them and so the defaults are used. arm is displaying : »(cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB)«. Ok, then Tor will figure out how much bandwidth it can reliably provide. On what conditions does that depend? If you look at your (datadirectory)/state file, it will show you how much bandwidth tor has been providing over time. I guess arm is using this or something similar to display the bandwidth usage of Tor. Looking at `DataDirectory/state` directly I cannot figure out how to interpret the values. Maybe I need tot enable bandwidth accounting. $ man torrc […] DataDirectory/state A set of persistent key-value mappings. These are documented in the file. These include: - The current entry guards and their status. - The current bandwidth accounting values (unused so far; see below). - When the file was last written - What version of Tor generated the state file - A short history of bandwidth usage, as produced in the router descriptors. DataDirectory/bw_accounting Used to track bandwidth accounting values (when the current period starts and ends; how much has been read and written so far this period). This file is obsolete, and the data is now stored in the ’state’ file as well. Only used when bandwidth accounting is enabled. […] Searching the WWW for »tor state bandwidth« did not help either. Thanks, Paul
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:32:59AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.4K bytes in 39 lines about: : What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? : : I did not configure them and so the defaults are used. arm is displaying : »(cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB)«. Ok, then Tor will figure out how much bandwidth it can reliably provide. If you look at your (datadirectory)/state file, it will show you how much bandwidth tor has been providing over time. -- Andrew Lewman The Tor Project pgp 0x31B0974B Website: https://www.torproject.org/ Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ Identi.ca: torproject *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 10:17 -0500 schrieb and...@torproject.org: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:32:59AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.4K bytes in 39 lines about: : What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? : : I did not configure them and so the defaults are used. arm is displaying : »(cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB)«. Ok, then Tor will figure out how much bandwidth it can reliably provide. On what conditions does that depend? If you look at your (datadirectory)/state file, it will show you how much bandwidth tor has been providing over time. I guess arm is using this or something similar to display the bandwidth usage of Tor. Looking at `DataDirectory/state` directly I cannot figure out how to interpret the values. Maybe I need tot enable bandwidth accounting. $ man torrc […] DataDirectory/state A set of persistent key-value mappings. These are documented in the file. These include: - The current entry guards and their status. - The current bandwidth accounting values (unused so far; see below). - When the file was last written - What version of Tor generated the state file - A short history of bandwidth usage, as produced in the router descriptors. DataDirectory/bw_accounting Used to track bandwidth accounting values (when the current period starts and ends; how much has been read and written so far this period). This file is obsolete, and the data is now stored in the ’state’ file as well. Only used when bandwidth accounting is enabled. […] Searching the WWW for »tor state bandwidth« did not help either. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Tor folks, Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 01:01 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 00:45 +0100 schrieb Hannah: On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:43:13AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 00:30 +0100 schrieb Hannah: On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:26:57AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: [...] I am out of ideas. It would be really nice, if someone could help, because otherwise the paid traffic volume will be wasted. Did you check CPU usage? If your CPU is maxed out, a higher configured bandwidth allowance won't help. the CPU usage shown by arm is 1.6 % and I verified this with `top`. So that should not be it. Ok. Do you have a fixed IP Yes. and has your relay run for long enough so it is deemed stable by the authorities? It ran for over three days. I think those are factors that might detriment the usage of your relay, as well. And it may also be influenced by whether it's an exit or a pure relay (or bridge). It is an exit node. I updated to 0.2.1.23 to no avail. It is up for 12 hours again and staying now at 66 KB/s. I also checked that there is still 50 MB free memory. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:03:22AM +0100, paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net wrote 1.9K bytes in 66 lines about: : I updated to 0.2.1.23 to no avail. It is up for 12 hours again and : staying now at 66 KB/s. I also checked that there is still 50 MB free : memory. 0.2.1.24 is current. What did you configure for your bandwidth limits or accountingmax? -- Andrew Lewman The Tor Project pgp 0x31B0974B Website: https://www.torproject.org/ Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ Identi.ca: torproject *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear SwissTor, thank you for your answer. Am Montag, den 01.03.2010, 23:47 +0100 schrieb starslights: Well i am not sure but look like you must first upgrade your Tor version to the last sable minimum 0.2.1.24 who i think will first fix the xx:xx:xx [WARN] Rejecting insecure DH key [0] xx:xx:xx [WARN] DH key must be at least 2. I am not 100% sure about that but pretty sure. I searched for the error on the WWW and it looks like this should be unrelated to the bandwidth problem and only has to do with clients not fully complying to the Tor protocol [1][2]. A devs will for sure rightanswer you :D Unfortunately it looks like nobody had time yet. I will update my original post with new information. So please reply on the other sub-thread. Thanks, Paul [1] http://archives.seul.org/or/cvs/Oct-2009/msg00232.html [2] http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/?do=detailsid=1114area=remind signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Tor folks, Am Montag, den 01.03.2010, 22:21 +0100 schrieb Paul Menzel: my Tor server is running for over three days now, but the average bandwidth usage shown by ARM [1] is only 100 KB/s for uploaded and downloaded. The usage increased during the first two days but has stagnated now. I am using the default `/etc/tor/torrc` so bandwidth should be limited by 5 MB/s by default, which is also shown by ARM. Bandwidth (cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB): [ … Pasted warnings seem unrelated. See other subthread. ] I can see no related messages in `/var/log/tor/log`. Testing the bandwidth by for example downloading a big file shows that higher bandwidth is available. Tor 0.2.0.35 OR Port: 443 Dir Port: 80 Could you please help me how I can find out, what is limiting Tor to use the full available bandwidth. I noticed [NOTICE] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. in `/var/log/tor/log`. Can this be used somehow to figure out if there is a problem? I also checked with arm that the used file descriptors are below the maximum allowed ones. I am out of ideas. It would be really nice, if someone could help, because otherwise the paid traffic volume will be wasted. Thanks, Paul [1] http://www.atagar.com/arm/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Hi! On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:26:57AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: [...] I am out of ideas. It would be really nice, if someone could help, because otherwise the paid traffic volume will be wasted. Did you check CPU usage? If your CPU is maxed out, a higher configured bandwidth allowance won't help. Kind regards, Hannah. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Hannah, Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 00:30 +0100 schrieb Hannah: On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:26:57AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: [...] I am out of ideas. It would be really nice, if someone could help, because otherwise the paid traffic volume will be wasted. Did you check CPU usage? If your CPU is maxed out, a higher configured bandwidth allowance won't help. the CPU usage shown by arm is 1.6 % and I verified this with `top`. So that should not be it. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Hi! On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:43:13AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 00:30 +0100 schrieb Hannah: On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:26:57AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: [...] I am out of ideas. It would be really nice, if someone could help, because otherwise the paid traffic volume will be wasted. Did you check CPU usage? If your CPU is maxed out, a higher configured bandwidth allowance won't help. the CPU usage shown by arm is 1.6 % and I verified this with `top`. So that should not be it. Ok. Do you have a fixed IP and has your relay run for long enough so it is deemed stable by the authorities? I think those are factors that might detriment the usage of your relay, as well. And it may also be influenced by whether it's an exit or a pure relay (or bridge). Kind regards, Hannah. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Hannah, Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 00:45 +0100 schrieb Hannah: On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:43:13AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 03.03.2010, 00:30 +0100 schrieb Hannah: On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:26:57AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: [...] I am out of ideas. It would be really nice, if someone could help, because otherwise the paid traffic volume will be wasted. Did you check CPU usage? If your CPU is maxed out, a higher configured bandwidth allowance won't help. the CPU usage shown by arm is 1.6 % and I verified this with `top`. So that should not be it. Ok. Do you have a fixed IP Yes. and has your relay run for long enough so it is deemed stable by the authorities? It ran for over three days. I think those are factors that might detriment the usage of your relay, as well. And it may also be influenced by whether it's an exit or a pure relay (or bridge). It is an exit node. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Full bandwidth is not used.
Dear Tor folks, my Tor server is running for over three days now, but the average bandwidth usage shown by ARM [1] is only 100 KB/s for uploaded and downloaded. The usage increased during the first two days but has stagnated now. I am using the default `/etc/tor/torrc` so bandwidth should be limited by 5 MB/s by default, which is also show by ARM. Bandwidth (cap: 5 MB, burst: 10 MB): I am only seeing the following warnings. xx:xx:xx [WARN] Rejected invalid g^x xx:xx:xx [WARN] Rejecting insecure DH key [0] xx:xx:xx [WARN] DH key must be at least 2. Testing the bandwidth by for example downloading a big file shows that higher bandwidth is available. Tor 0.2.0.35 OR Port: 443 Dir Port: 80 Could you please help me how I can find out, what is limiting Tor to use the full available bandwidth. Thanks, Paul [1] http://www.atagar.com/arm/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Full bandwidth is not used.
Hello, Well i am not sure but look like you must first upgrade your Tor version to the last sable minimum 0.2.1.24 who i think will first fix the xx:xx:xx [WARN] Rejecting insecure DH key [0] xx:xx:xx [WARN] DH key must be at least 2. I am not 100% sure about that but pretty sure. A devs will for sure rightanswer you :D SwissTor signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
