[tor-relays] (no subject)
Hello. I have these settings in my torrc-file RelayBandwidthRate 1 KB # Throttle traffic to 1000KB/s (800Kbps) RelayBandwidthBurst 2 KB # But allow bursts up to 2000KB/s (1600Kbps) MaxAdvertisedBandwidth 1 KB I have a decent cable-based internet-connection at home and want to share lots of bandwith. Unfortunately my exit node only does about 220kb/sec avg: 219.2 Kb/sec, total: 18.4 GB avg: 224.7 Kb/sec, total: 18.5 GB What do i have to change to speed this up? ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Strong bumps in traffic with 0.2.6.3
Hello, I noticed on my Tor relay that deploying 0.2.6.3 resulted in the bandwidth going up an down a lot which can be seen here: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/CE75BF0972ADD52AF8807602374E495C815DB304 It looks like I am not the only one. This CCC hosted relay (different OS, provider, etc.) appears to have the same thing happening: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/9BDF3EEA1D33AA58A2EEA9E6CA58FB8A667288FC It is hard to filter relays per version right now (maybe something onionoo could support?). Are others experiencing the same problems? ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Strong bumps in traffic with 0.2.6.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/02/15 15:50, Christian Sturm wrote: I noticed on my Tor relay that deploying 0.2.6.3 resulted in the bandwidth going up an down a lot which can be seen here: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/CE75BF0972ADD52AF8807602374E495C815DB304 It looks like I am not the only one. This CCC hosted relay (different OS, provider, etc.) appears to have the same thing happening: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/9BDF3EEA1D33AA58A2EEA9E6CA58FB8A667288FC Ah, that looks like an issue in Onionoo, not in little-t-tor. I think this is caused by this recent change: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13988 I'll have to fix Onionoo. Could take a few days though. It is hard to filter relays per version right now (maybe something onionoo could support?). Are others experiencing the same problems? There's already a ticket for this: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/14879 All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU505ZAAoJEJd5OEYhk8hImNQH/0iEUOkWnff68dWMG5ysYDeY 3heRxfqGw/ZV3IGVvGw5VrvqgDz6UsvuWKD3zIF0QuDxP01nlfSQoCg3LW6n0EkX 40+JMEm1Kf4dXLjJkoAwcowzJ+TYnhX+9IAWZ3emIP49j3icKi/IvAYNzjzkUy+P IWvz81BpYK66LJZwpqy8cuAV79C3v8aHUs8nU/eVFuor2/aWC/NSg4S1cAFIRu5r Cy2o52KWswTGsYd97RoSz4CbAjTqnPz84cP5f6fVuKzd8iCoL5b3Cxy3B0xnVmky eWQLDulSJzdMWb+ItzVFHxkhHx7RWTtRTnyF3o4bjF2X8fCIwH8yl4iHvHqasro= =H90U -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet.
I'm sorry for the late reply on this but I've been having problems with my Internet connection and am trying to catch up on emails. I've never received that message but months ago I started getting messages in the posts you referenced like: Jan 05 12:36:58.138 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Jan 05 12:36:58.354 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 192.0.2.7 is back up The timeframe of the failure was so short I assumed it was a timeout or packet loss issue. My research led me to those posts as well as all the replies that essentially were: me too and I ignore them, your DNS servers are too slow, or guesses that the issue was packet loss. I'm running on a residential ISP as was one of the other referenced posts. I've run a relay for years and was already running Unbound so I initially ignored them too but they began to occur more frequently. I also began to notice that occasionally websites wouldn't even attempt to load but when I clicked refresh they would immediately display. I contacted my ISP for support. Over the months the problem has continued to worsen to the point where a few months ago the cable modem started to stop responding or power-cycles and recovers. I've stopped relaying because of the unreliability. I'm on the fourth cable modem, third router, and second PC. (My only expenses were one of each of those. While they were old they met my needs. I wish I hadn't had to spend the money to replace them but I have enjoyed the improved speeds and features.) The last troubleshooting step the ISP tried was replacing the cable lines and splitters from their equipment at the pole all the way to my modem. I was surprised to learn that the existing cable was RG-59/U since it was replaced only a few years ago after a storm damaged it. This time they replaced it with RG-11/U from the pole to service box at the house and RG-6/U from there to the modem. (I'd already replaced the cable to my TV's with RG-6/UQ when HD came out.) The problem has improved quite a bit but hasn't stopped. I'm waiting on a technician to arrive on-site to continue troubleshooting further. The cable technician who replaced my lines thought for sure that it would resolve the issue. I told him how the problem had started slowly and grown to its present state. I asked what other symptoms one would notice if their cable lines needed to be replaced. He said that the lower cable TV channels would be poorer quality than the higher channels. I don't watch much TV but just last week I'd helped a neighbor with her TV and in her comments about how much she disliked the cable TV monopoly where we live she had said, Just look at how horrible quality the lower channels are. She had complained to the cable company last month about several problems she was having and they hadn't replaced her cable lines. I checked the service box at her house and there wasn't any label to indicate the type but the interesting thing was that the splitter had the old logo for our provider over 20 years ago. When she called them and reported the poor quality on the lower channels they immediately scheduled to have her lines and splitter replaced. Evidently you can have lots of problems that they don't have a clue how to fix but if you say the key words that I wouldn't have used to describe her problem that's what the cable staff can recognize and resolve. One of the things I did to collect more detail on the DNS issue was capture all DNS traffic on my network using DNSQuerySniffer by NirSoft available at http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dns_query_sniffer.html. To filter and review it I'd export it to Excel. Surprisingly I found a lot of corrupt queries. You may not be having corruption but you could probably determine more about the problem using that utility or one like it. Another tool I used to troubleshoot further is WinMTR (Redux) by appnor.com. I believe it's a Windows version of the Linux mtr program. It essentially runs a continuous combined ping and trace route calculating loss and min, max, and avg response time. One of the nice things is you can set the packet size and you can get very different results by using 1472 bytes instead of the default 32 or 64 depending on program. At work once I had an ISP tell me their circuit was fine after connecting a laptop to each end and running a continuous 32 byte ping test without loss. I connected my laptop and using just the WinMTR 64 byte default the packet loss went to 70%. The (Redux) by appnor.com fork is better than others I've found because it doesn't require admin privileges to run and supports IPv6. With my current problem using a 1472 packet size the packet loss on their network is only .16% or .84% reliable which is just short of the golden five nines of reliability but nothing close to what would explain my problem. The reason for the amount of detail is to help others who get this error message, those who have a similar setup
Re: [tor-relays] load balance across multiple WAN?
Hi Rupert, Yes, a setup like that will work with Tor. Nothing relies on the IP addresses of incoming connections. Tom Rupert Roe schreef op 20/02/15 om 23:03: Hi, I currently run this middle node from a residental VDSL connection: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/D0D6992508E64E28A77373B82798AB196BFA5B3E I am currently limited by the upload speed of my connection (~20MBit), I was wondering if I had another VDSL connection installed would I be able to load balance the upload of the relay across the two connections? Or would this mess up the routing for my relay? I.e. traffic comes in to the single published relay IP (which is OK as it's ~80MBit download). Then the relay can push ~40MBit upload load balanced across two 20MBit connections. Would it be problematic because the traffic would come from two different IPs, one of which does not match the published IP for the relay? I hope that question makes sense?? Thanks -- +447867537146 skype: rupertroe1 -- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays smime.p7s Description: S/MIME-cryptografische ondertekening ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] load balance across multiple WAN?
Hi, I currently run this middle node from a residental VDSL connection: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/D0D6992508E64E28A77373B82798AB196BFA5B3E I am currently limited by the upload speed of my connection (~20MBit), I was wondering if I had another VDSL connection installed would I be able to load balance the upload of the relay across the two connections? Or would this mess up the routing for my relay? I.e. traffic comes in to the single published relay IP (which is OK as it's ~80MBit download). Then the relay can push ~40MBit upload load balanced across two 20MBit connections. Would it be problematic because the traffic would come from two different IPs, one of which does not match the published IP for the relay? I hope that question makes sense?? Thanks -- +447867537146 skype: rupertroe1 -- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet.
On February 21, 2015 2:09:48 AM Libertas liber...@mykolab.com wrote: Hi, On 02/20/2015 06:31 PM, Jacob Corbin wrote: I'm sorry for the late reply on this but I've been having problems with my Internet connection and am trying to catch up on emails. I've never received that message but months ago I started getting messages in the posts you referenced like: Jan 05 12:36:58.138 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Jan 05 12:36:58.354 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 192.0.2.7 is back up I get this constantly on my exit node running OpenBSD with a local Unbound caching DNS server. I think libevent (this is part of libevent, right?) is just a little too trigger-happy with reporting DNS requests as failed, as my failures never last more than a second. I was considering opening a ticket about this. Unbound@Debian here, the same effect. Thanks in advance if you do open a ticket. -- Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations / M.f.G. Sebastian Urbach - Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth. - Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956), American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist and critic. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet.
On 02/20/2015 06:31 PM, Jacob Corbin wrote: I'm sorry for the late reply on this but I've been having problems with my Internet connection and am trying to catch up on emails. I've never received that message but months ago I started getting messages in the posts you referenced like: Jan 05 12:36:58.138 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Jan 05 12:36:58.354 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 192.0.2.7 is back up I get this constantly on my exit node running OpenBSD with a local Unbound caching DNS server. I think libevent (this is part of libevent, right?) is just a little too trigger-happy with reporting DNS requests as failed, as my failures never last more than a second. I was considering opening a ticket about this. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] load balance across multiple WAN?
Great thanks both for your help, I will go ahead and order the additional connection :-) On 20 February 2015 at 22:24, grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Rupert Roe rupert.j@gmail.com wrote: balance the upload of the relay across the two connections? Or would this mess up the routing for my relay? I.e. traffic comes in to the single .. it be problematic because the traffic would come from two different IPs, one There is also OutboundBindAddress *ListenAddress config options and ability to run multiple relays daemons independantly on one machine if trying to loadbalance around the default route doesn't work. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays -- +447867537146 skype: rupertroe1 -- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 We have a ticket open for this: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/11600 I think this is a libevent error. It happened to me on FreeBSD 10 with Bind910, FreeBSD 10 with Unbound, Debian Wheezy with Unbound, Debian Wheezy with Bind, Debian Wheezy with ISP-assigned-resolvers (pretty much everything). Happened initially on Tor 0.2.4.21, followed to all upgrades of 0.2.4.x series and also happens currently on 0.2.5.10, but on the latest version the error appears not to occur as often as it used to in 0.2.4.x series. On 2/21/2015 4:06 AM, Sebastian Urbach wrote: On February 21, 2015 2:09:48 AM Libertas liber...@mykolab.com wrote: Hi, On 02/20/2015 06:31 PM, Jacob Corbin wrote: I'm sorry for the late reply on this but I've been having problems with my Internet connection and am trying to catch up on emails. I've never received that message but months ago I started getting messages in the posts you referenced like: Jan 05 12:36:58.138 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Jan 05 12:36:58.354 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 192.0.2.7 is back up I get this constantly on my exit node running OpenBSD with a local Unbound caching DNS server. I think libevent (this is part of libevent, right?) is just a little too trigger-happy with reporting DNS requests as failed, as my failures never last more than a second. I was considering opening a ticket about this. Unbound@Debian here, the same effect. Thanks in advance if you do open a ticket. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJU5+91AAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRmqgIAMdCnbLul375fYbFSkVDY6ey Zy6rQy8cAhXcTQbp3C+avUL3gJUaWFmNPL2jFfg+Q9cI83gT6x3VmqgcDazXL1zb QMlJKlkg5WF7b6w/0ZTMw8y0lMmH6sufzy6FArq5ms5nn7RFLZcce6RhepD/apow scmCBiGuI1OFJA8VqhpOuWiLD0E3HuCfHUsqn0VRcc8db8BNtvaHSfflhsTqGRo3 xuwwNcnz9xQ4rREFIJiPWSw9GMIt+gZrxUkJtpXbGXy1OWkvR+zcmkzND5V6SncE VylmAXw8QZga6b4I/EephgfiTDhKq7hQtqdBzoDWdPo5qfY9uwuGSAmTOYjm9g0= =QW3F -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
