Interesting; I wouldn't have expected it to be so high. I only measure my bandwidth globally, not per-port. In that case, it may be a good idea for Sebastian to disable the dirport to keep outgoing traffic roughly equivalent to incoming, since outgoing is his limitation.
- John Brooks On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Scott Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:58:49 -0700 John Brooks < > [email protected]> > top-posted: > >First off, thanks for running a node - the network always needs more > >bandwidth. > > > >As far as i'm aware, it isn't possible to specify incoming and outgoing > >limits separately, and if it were, the outgoing would always be higher. > For > >the most part, relayed traffic is pretty close to 1:1; for everything that > >comes in, there is equal data going out (to the next node in the chain, > the > >source, or the destination). The one major exception to this is the > >directory; requests for the directory are very small, but the results can > be > >pretty large - but, that just means more outgoing than incoming. There is > no > >benefit to having more incoming bandwidth than you do outgoing bandwidth. > >You can always disable the directory (DirPort 0) if you want to avoid that > >little bit of outgoing traffic, but usually it isn't too significant. > > I disagree. Now that my relay has been up for well over a month this > time, pf reports that the RDR rule for the DirPort has handled bytes > totalling > nearly 16% of the number of bytes handled by the RDR rule for the ORPort. > I've usually seen it higher than that, typically around 25%. > > > 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 * > ********************************************************************** >
