Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote: Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and not improving. . . I read the earlier discussion around this issue with interest. Have no specific ideas about resolving the problem, but I can recommend pulling the raw text data files for the authority votes, grep'ping your nodes, and looking at the specific BWauth votes over time. The data is found here https://collector.torproject.org/archive/relay-descriptors/votes/ and while the files are a bit huge, are easy to whack at with *nix command line tools such as egrep/awk/sed/perl etc. In a pinch one might apply Excel to the problem, but first trim the data set down to size with a grep or your desktop and Excel will choke and die. I did this at the point where the bandwidth for election to guard status was increased greatly and my node was shipped off to middle- relay mediocrity. Could see clearly how it all transpired, but of course I could do nothing about it short of spending more $$ on bandwidth. With the raw data in hand, it will be easier to campaign the operators of the troublesome BWauths to correct the problem. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
All, Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and not improving. For a network that attempts to break censorship, it is peculiar that this is getting so little attention. Apparently a few malfunctioning bwauth systems is enough to censor specific Tor relays. Endless research and development effort is put in tweaking and optimizing the relay-to-relay communication, but having only a few systems in the world that determine the consensus weight of the entire network does not seem to trouble anyone. Wierd. I hope the bwauth operators can find a way to correct the problem. I am feeling silly spending good money on a high-end server with unmetered bandwidth that has now been relaying a whopping 300 Kb/s on average during the last five weeks. Thanks, Bram Thank you all for looking into this. Karsten wrote: You could start a second relay on the same physical machine on a different port and see whether the bandwidth scanners pick that up. Give it a day or two, and see if only tor26 and moria1 measure it. In fact, both the 7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 and E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 relays operate on the same IP address. Both dropped to 0.00%. However, other nodes in the same AS16265 are doing fine (e.g. B144DC5C08AF1FB3ABD729AFC2CF938CF63F78AC). This seems to suggest that the route between the bwauths and the relay is irrelevant and connectivity is not an issue. I can imagine that an overloaded bwauth occasionally skips a few relays. But wouldn't that be corrected automatically during the measurement the next day? Given that the relays are missing votes consistently during many consecutive days, some other mechanism must be causing this. Would a quick-fix be to randomize the order in which relays are measured? That way, if a bwauth has trouble processing the entire list in 24h, every day other relays are given a chance? Thanks, Bram ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
This has already been done. And I was under the impression that things would be changing soon. I still find it weird that the network is ignoring several nodes. On 31.01.2015 09:23 PM, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote: Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and not improving. . . I read the earlier discussion around this issue with interest. Have no specific ideas about resolving the problem, but I can recommend pulling the raw text data files for the authority votes, grep'ping your nodes, and looking at the specific BWauth votes over time. The data is found here https://collector.torproject.org/archive/relay-descriptors/votes/ and while the files are a bit huge, are easy to whack at with *nix command line tools such as egrep/awk/sed/perl etc. In a pinch one might apply Excel to the problem, but first trim the data set down to size with a grep or your desktop and Excel will choke and die. I did this at the point where the bandwidth for election to guard status was increased greatly and my node was shipped off to middle- relay mediocrity. Could see clearly how it all transpired, but of course I could do nothing about it short of spending more $$ on bandwidth. With the raw data in hand, it will be easier to campaign the operators of the troublesome BWauths to correct the problem. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
2) This link has been posted: http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes. Currently there is nothing a node operator can do bar deleting his keys. Atleast no other solution has been posted in this thread. On 31.01.2015 10:23 PM, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: At 21:51 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote: This has already been done. Implicit in my post is that 1) about 10 days have passed, so recent data is more relevant than the earlier work, especially an one BWauth operator stated his node should be doing better; and 2) no precise mention of how to obtain the data was posted earlier and doing so might enable Bram de Boer to examine and track the situation directly. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Hello List, at this point I want to thank Bram de Boer for spending an unmetered server. Dediacted servers with unmetered network is not cheap and should be treated differently as a virtual server at OVH. I can totally agree why he is disappointed about that. Just deleting the identity is not a solution for me. The identity of a server is also a certificate of the spend effort. If something like that would happen to my relays I would be out of here. Especially I'm not using Tor at all but want to help people who can not access the web like I can do. I recently tried to check why the consensus dropped by reviewing the votes data and digged into the source but my knowledge about that is far below the average. So I hope someone with more knowledge is reviewing this case and post a solution or declare it as a general probleme and write a bug report. ~Josef Am 31.01.2015 um 22:35 schrieb Network Operations Center: 2) This link has been posted: http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes. Currently there is nothing a node operator can do bar deleting his keys. Atleast no other solution has been posted in this thread. On 31.01.2015 10:23 PM, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: At 21:51 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote: This has already been done. Implicit in my post is that 1) about 10 days have passed, so recent data is more relevant than the earlier work, especially an one BWauth operator stated his node should be doing better; and 2) no precise mention of how to obtain the data was posted earlier and doing so might enable Bram de Boer to examine and track the situation directly. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays 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] Consensus weight dropped
At 22:35 1/31/2015 +0100, Network Operations Center wrote: This link has been posted: http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes. This looks like the data from just one BWauth, 'moria1'. The full time series for the _four_ BWauth votes is included along with the five other consensus authorities, all found here https://collector.torproject.org/recent/relay-descriptors/votes/ A link which was not previously posted and which is a bit hard to find. I can find it because I remember the data is in there somewhere, having used it before the site was restructured. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
What if one were to shut down the node for several days and then restart it. Wouldnt that maybe prompt the network to rescan the node? On 31.01.2015 10:48 PM, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote: Hello List, at this point I want to thank Bram de Boer for spending an unmetered server. Dediacted servers with unmetered network is not cheap and should be treated differently as a virtual server at OVH. I can totally agree why he is disappointed about that. Just deleting the identity is not a solution for me. The identity of a server is also a certificate of the spend effort. If something like that would happen to my relays I would be out of here. Especially I'm not using Tor at all but want to help people who can not access the web like I can do. I recently tried to check why the consensus dropped by reviewing the votes data and digged into the source but my knowledge about that is far below the average. So I hope someone with more knowledge is reviewing this case and post a solution or declare it as a general probleme and write a bug report. ~Josef Am 31.01.2015 um 22:35 schrieb Network Operations Center: 2) This link has been posted: http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes. Currently there is nothing a node operator can do bar deleting his keys. Atleast no other solution has been posted in this thread. On 31.01.2015 10:23 PM, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: At 21:51 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote: This has already been done. Implicit in my post is that 1) about 10 days have passed, so recent data is more relevant than the earlier work, especially an one BWauth operator stated his node should be doing better; and 2) no precise mention of how to obtain the data was posted earlier and doing so might enable Bram de Boer to examine and track the situation directly. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Karsten Loesing kars...@torproject.org wrote Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:25 +0100: | But here's another graph, specifically for your relay schokomilch: | | https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/schokomilch-cw-2015-01-21.png | | 14C1 is tor26, 4901 is maatuska, and D586 is moria1. It looks like | maatuska stopped measuring your relay between December 29 and January | 5, which is a general problem with maatuska's scanner, not specific to | your relay, AFAIK. I am the operator of the bandwidth authority reporting to maatuska. This bandwidth authority has had multiple issues since late December but is now making progress towards serving maatuska with measurement data again. This should not have been a big deal, but since two other bw auths apparently have (had) trouble measuring some relays it hurt more than anticipated. Thanks for your patience and time put into digging into this. Thanks for running relays! ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Thank you all for looking into this. Karsten wrote: You could start a second relay on the same physical machine on a different port and see whether the bandwidth scanners pick that up. Give it a day or two, and see if only tor26 and moria1 measure it. In fact, both the 7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 and E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 relays operate on the same IP address. Both dropped to 0.00%. However, other nodes in the same AS16265 are doing fine (e.g. B144DC5C08AF1FB3ABD729AFC2CF938CF63F78AC). This seems to suggest that the route between the bwauths and the relay is irrelevant and connectivity is not an issue. I can imagine that an overloaded bwauth occasionally skips a few relays. But wouldn't that be corrected automatically during the measurement the next day? Given that the relays are missing votes consistently during many consecutive days, some other mechanism must be causing this. Would a quick-fix be to randomize the order in which relays are measured? That way, if a bwauth has trouble processing the entire list in 24h, every day other relays are given a chance? Thanks, Bram ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
My dropping consensus overlaps exactly with the blue line on that graph time-wise. The 1 Month Graph shows this pretty well. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 It feels as if I am almost completely dependent on that blue node, although since one needs multiple measures, it shouldn't be possible. On 21.01.2015 11:34 AM, Karsten Loesing wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/01/15 06:03, Sebastian Hahn wrote: On 21 Jan 2015, at 05:10, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote: Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable? I don't think it was historically like that. Actually, it's not that bad: https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/bwauths-2015-01-21.png That graph shows that most relays have been measured by either 4 or 5 bandwidth authorities in the past weeks. Only relays with 0, 1, or 2 measurements had their consensus weight fraction set to almost 0. But it's far less than 40% of relays. I assume that's natural churn in the network. Seems like the two relays mentioned on this list have some other issue. Ideas, anyone? All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUv4C4AAoJEJd5OEYhk8hICKYH/21kTHfZ0pG0L/OiFBrbTFy3 bNAPYeTa1AAJb0PHpweKn7gX9pBheKwCDzd36Nk8cWhkYJ/QmrumE2IXxoFTGT3L X++MCTxqtnN+XDqNlNdgyAfYVAk/jG7RtqxSzxDFTl3BSW18t8KwbOGokuWluAI+ Zp7Oo33Rmvk3/Jmgc4Ht364esrLXyFpO2SBdGCzSLLtSkPATIMrnhBx5ruDpWGcg 4wD5tNzztfBfrc7vSVwJXLTfAmJOZmaH7nBRS8CRhOlQ9x6/FBW8unSf8bD75+O7 mMep1/k2QJlTwbU9ydySgx4crwO1b5bLKOoD8kYme3TDM6qjZ5cpcETpiR01vUM= =CefK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/01/15 06:03, Sebastian Hahn wrote: On 21 Jan 2015, at 05:10, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote: Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable? I don't think it was historically like that. Actually, it's not that bad: https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/bwauths-2015-01-21.png That graph shows that most relays have been measured by either 4 or 5 bandwidth authorities in the past weeks. Only relays with 0, 1, or 2 measurements had their consensus weight fraction set to almost 0. But it's far less than 40% of relays. I assume that's natural churn in the network. Seems like the two relays mentioned on this list have some other issue. Ideas, anyone? All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUv4C4AAoJEJd5OEYhk8hICKYH/21kTHfZ0pG0L/OiFBrbTFy3 bNAPYeTa1AAJb0PHpweKn7gX9pBheKwCDzd36Nk8cWhkYJ/QmrumE2IXxoFTGT3L X++MCTxqtnN+XDqNlNdgyAfYVAk/jG7RtqxSzxDFTl3BSW18t8KwbOGokuWluAI+ Zp7Oo33Rmvk3/Jmgc4Ht364esrLXyFpO2SBdGCzSLLtSkPATIMrnhBx5ruDpWGcg 4wD5tNzztfBfrc7vSVwJXLTfAmJOZmaH7nBRS8CRhOlQ9x6/FBW8unSf8bD75+O7 mMep1/k2QJlTwbU9ydySgx4crwO1b5bLKOoD8kYme3TDM6qjZ5cpcETpiR01vUM= =CefK -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] Consensus weight dropped
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/01/15 11:54, Network Operations Center wrote: My dropping consensus overlaps exactly with the blue line on that graph time-wise. The 1 Month Graph shows this pretty well. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 It feels as if I am almost completely dependent on that blue node, although since one needs multiple measures, it shouldn't be possible. Ah, sorry for being unclear. The blue line is not bandwidth authority number 4, it's the number of relays for which there are measurements from 4 bandwidth authorities. But here's another graph, specifically for your relay schokomilch: https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/schokomilch-cw-2015-01-21.png 14C1 is tor26, 4901 is maatuska, and D586 is moria1. It looks like maatuska stopped measuring your relay between December 29 and January 5, which is a general problem with maatuska's scanner, not specific to your relay, AFAIK. And unrelated to this, neither gabelmoo nor longclaw ever measured your relay. I'd say this is something to investigate and then fix. All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUv5oBAAoJEJd5OEYhk8hIqgkIAKE82nkthE5OEIGxBtgtqKdd cB8Kq2BdgGSq6kYi7CF6EclJuc7mhEBHkfhYiWTyCE/yhXyg7hFkyiL3rr9qGVtE gBxoJqX8OgmdoV9c74Ao83qU130SQ4BArYgFwqmC64tvSpe4jl6tiFddndF5MomC 4YH0Nuw6VnxUTPcG2ZiRjab5sZcpJ4YLJzBmbjB1oXRy2UaRQOTT2o1Cz65fBIt3 4lCW9lMTfxn4G3JUEO2Pj1rTgyoKM3U7spv/IdyrmQmK+wwzKCDRIxkWAIDbM2Rw lOEwNz3rodsIksgyZk/oOPA/NiJUaKEWKX7DR2D2rBhCIuRamV6np1b5oE2uRjU= =BhVW -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] Consensus weight dropped
Ah I see, thanks for taking the time investigating this. If there is something I need to do to help, please let me know. On 21.01.2015 01:22 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/01/15 11:54, Network Operations Center wrote: My dropping consensus overlaps exactly with the blue line on that graph time-wise. The 1 Month Graph shows this pretty well. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 It feels as if I am almost completely dependent on that blue node, although since one needs multiple measures, it shouldn't be possible. Ah, sorry for being unclear. The blue line is not bandwidth authority number 4, it's the number of relays for which there are measurements from 4 bandwidth authorities. But here's another graph, specifically for your relay schokomilch: https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/schokomilch-cw-2015-01-21.png 14C1 is tor26, 4901 is maatuska, and D586 is moria1. It looks like maatuska stopped measuring your relay between December 29 and January 5, which is a general problem with maatuska's scanner, not specific to your relay, AFAIK. And unrelated to this, neither gabelmoo nor longclaw ever measured your relay. I'd say this is something to investigate and then fix. All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUv5oBAAoJEJd5OEYhk8hIqgkIAKE82nkthE5OEIGxBtgtqKdd cB8Kq2BdgGSq6kYi7CF6EclJuc7mhEBHkfhYiWTyCE/yhXyg7hFkyiL3rr9qGVtE gBxoJqX8OgmdoV9c74Ao83qU130SQ4BArYgFwqmC64tvSpe4jl6tiFddndF5MomC 4YH0Nuw6VnxUTPcG2ZiRjab5sZcpJ4YLJzBmbjB1oXRy2UaRQOTT2o1Cz65fBIt3 4lCW9lMTfxn4G3JUEO2Pj1rTgyoKM3U7spv/IdyrmQmK+wwzKCDRIxkWAIDbM2Rw lOEwNz3rodsIksgyZk/oOPA/NiJUaKEWKX7DR2D2rBhCIuRamV6np1b5oE2uRjU= =BhVW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/01/15 13:35, Network Operations Center wrote: Ah I see, thanks for taking the time investigating this. If there is something I need to do to help, please let me know. You could start a second relay on the same physical machine on a different port and see whether the bandwidth scanners pick that up. Give it a day or two, and see if only tor26 and moria1 measure it. You can find out the latter by fetching the latest votes from all directory authorities and searching for your nickname and subsequent w lines in them: https://collector.torproject.org/recent/relay-descriptors/votes/ And of course you'll notice on Atlas whether the consensus weight fraction of your new relay will be 0.0% or not. All the best, Karsten On 21.01.2015 01:22 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote: On 21/01/15 11:54, Network Operations Center wrote: My dropping consensus overlaps exactly with the blue line on that graph time-wise. The 1 Month Graph shows this pretty well. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 It feels as if I am almost completely dependent on that blue node, although since one needs multiple measures, it shouldn't be possible. Ah, sorry for being unclear. The blue line is not bandwidth authority number 4, it's the number of relays for which there are measurements from 4 bandwidth authorities. But here's another graph, specifically for your relay schokomilch: https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/schokomilch-cw-2015-01-21.png 14C1 is tor26, 4901 is maatuska, and D586 is moria1. It looks like maatuska stopped measuring your relay between December 29 and January 5, which is a general problem with maatuska's scanner, not specific to your relay, AFAIK. And unrelated to this, neither gabelmoo nor longclaw ever measured your relay. I'd say this is something to investigate and then fix. All the best, Karsten ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUv5+CAAoJEJd5OEYhk8hIqTwH/0AeNxhZu7zNlkdN3W2F9TT1 k1yAeZrZtf4qfb+rAkTD21njzrFo3VUaO7QhBBZPOuVsLgfWGc9YAVVAINnRQPOq WzgE7lr/123xbYRZV5if+tcODhrj9WHmnOK7UT+iA3EvekkNU7S4Z1iJh/klxix5 31q36RvDbo/OQIWRV8p+pirwJ5fPes5bDr9B3JbKAHw10XeqG1VlGZVoPaLXR05W AwQBhU80UsRiZzxH434KwAXY/5iaCY92cLoux+N/B+nAMZ33NGAjCHb530FghpB8 O0KZHawlV+XFMoaEM+il2I1aDoKC+gtmBerdUk93ZD55PxVAjfOBMLrgVWgtbVI= =j/m5 -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] Consensus weight dropped
Karsten wrote: Did you check whether the consensus weight *fraction* also dropped? Yes, it dropped from 0.193553% to 0.00% Please post your relay fingerprint(s) here, and I'll investigate this. These are the fingerprints of the relays I operate: 7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 Thanks, Bram ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable? On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net wrote: On 20 Jan 2015, at 22:58, Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu wrote: We've already known about this in the context of the bandwidth authority scripts are very poorly tuned for the changes that have happened in the Tor network since the scripts were written, so they vote wildly varying numbers for relays. But I don't think that we'd realized the some relays don't get three votes at all, so they basically get zeroed out issue. Hm. Yeah we knew about it actually, ot was discussed extensively but in a different context. We knew that each dirauth misses up to 40% of all relays in absolute amount, which means it misses an unknown amount of bandwidth. Grr. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
On 21 Jan 2015, at 05:10, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote: Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable? I don't think it was historically like that. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Very thorough explanation, thanks. I assume that there is nothing I can do except wait until a.) a new BWauth script is being introduced or b.) hope that a third node rediscovers me and once I have 3 votes in the bag I'm back on track. What still confuses me is why several nodes were being dropped by the BWauths all on Dec 28. Then on Jan 6th all of the affected nodes have been rediscovered for a day. I tracerouted all of the BWauths and I don't have trouble sending ICMP packets to said hosts, so it doesn't seem routing related. On 20.01.2015 10:58 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:44:46AM +0100, Network Operations Center wrote: Thank you! https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 The votes from the directory authorities for the last consensus period are here: http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes In this case it looks like schokomilch has these votes for the w line: w Bandwidth=2525 Measured=1600 [moria1] w Bandwidth=2525[dizum] w Bandwidth=2525[Faravahar] w Bandwidth=2525[gabelmoo] w Bandwidth=2525[dannenberg] w Bandwidth=2525[urras] w Bandwidth=2525[longclaw] w Bandwidth=2525 Measured=674 [tor26] w Bandwidth=2525[maatuska] So since only two directory authorities vote a Measured value for it, and the design calls for three opinions, it ends up unmeasured, and thus with a consensus weight of 20. You can read about the reasoning for requiring Measured votes here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2286 In theory gabelmoo and longclaw are supposed to have opinions about your relay too: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html#bwauthstatus But they don't, so here we are. The problem is likely that the bwauth (bandwidth authority) scripts are old and buggy and unmaintained. See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=!closedcomponent=Torflow especially the tickets towards the bottom. We've already known about this in the context of the bandwidth authority scripts are very poorly tuned for the changes that have happened in the Tor network since the scripts were written, so they vote wildly varying numbers for relays. But I don't think that we'd realized the some relays don't get three votes at all, so they basically get zeroed out issue. Hm. (Ultimately I am hoping for the bwauth scripts to get phased out, in favor of one of the secure bandwidth measurement schemes that various research groups have been working on lately. Those other designs also will have the advantage that it's harder to game the system by lying about your bandwidth. But it will be some months at least until we have one of those designs to evaluate.) --Roger ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
On 20.01.2015 23:38, Network Operations Center wrote: Very thorough explanation, thanks. I assume that there is nothing I can do except wait until a.) a new BWauth script is being introduced or b.) hope that a third node rediscovers me and once I have 3 votes in the bag I'm back on track. What about c.): Clearing out the relay keys to recreate the nodes' identity? BR Felix ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node. Weird. On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com wrote: Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more. Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in consensus weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Hey there, On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:03, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote: This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node. Weird. On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com wrote: Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more. Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in consensus weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th. figuring out what happened will likely involve looking at the directory authority votes to see if anything specific happened. One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. I'm looking forward to any analysis someone might do on this. Cheers Sebastian 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
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Sebastian wrote: One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that is not the case and the drop in consensus weight is just a temporary glitch. I will post to the development mailing list to see if the techies can comment on this. Paying hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money for a relay that is not being used by the network is not something I will keep doing for long. I support the goals and ideology of Tor, but the project will lose me as a volunteer if consensus weight does not restore soon. Thanks, Bram Hey there, On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:03, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote: This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node. Weird. On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com wrote: Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more. Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in consensus weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th. figuring out what happened will likely involve looking at the directory authority votes to see if anything specific happened. One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. I'm looking forward to any analysis someone might do on this. Cheers Sebastian ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
I concur. Maybe it's worth to also post to the bugtracker? On 19.01.2015 08:14 PM, Bram de Boer wrote: Sebastian wrote: One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that is not the case and the drop in consensus weight is just a temporary glitch. I will post to the development mailing list to see if the techies can comment on this. Paying hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money for a relay that is not being used by the network is not something I will keep doing for long. I support the goals and ideology of Tor, but the project will lose me as a volunteer if consensus weight does not restore soon. Thanks, Bram Hey there, On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:03, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote: This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node. Weird. On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com wrote: Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more. Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in consensus weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th. figuring out what happened will likely involve looking at the directory authority votes to see if anything specific happened. One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. I'm looking forward to any analysis someone might do on this. Cheers Sebastian ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/01/15 20:14, Bram de Boer wrote: Sebastian wrote: One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that is not the case and the drop in consensus weight is just a temporary glitch. I will post to the development mailing list to see if the techies can comment on this. Paying hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money for a relay that is not being used by the network is not something I will keep doing for long. I support the goals and ideology of Tor, but the project will lose me as a volunteer if consensus weight does not restore soon. Did you check whether the consensus weight *fraction* also dropped? If all consensus weights dropped by a certain factor, there's no change in the probability of clients choosing your relay at all. Take a look at Atlas' or Globe's consensus weight fraction graphs and see if they changed over the past weeks or months. All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUvV7zAAoJEJd5OEYhk8hIvWgIAJi002cwqJbZv03t67QGCs1L DlNt50+i00zoIaYw7eVZV5F6DtkO1WRRR9VRBHgfufz2q5xj1YccR5a/mMdtZvVV T1PT0b1lXox7Hhogj7SKuvYKTbpgbTZh0WIq66ysoMBS8LqY0ZFcwiLZQs9fwo/J D1F/xsPZzjgm3GiBktmQH479LZT588Y8qzt3LGpKBpu2aXQF81YLv8plbJAo9Oh7 atD4xTZlSpA7MntJ7Rnn67aChaYDn2QgERWH+b04rloU9NGhmkBXuDZxBBb4/EWo ShxOshZRNRlcicbbm8dcaHdEVpnxi1Pl7ztidkoK2jYxOSnAqVfkayWpW7BjiIs= =4doV -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] Consensus weight dropped
Yes, fraction dropped from 0,2% to 0.72% On 19.01.2015 08:45 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/01/15 20:14, Bram de Boer wrote: Sebastian wrote: One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher than others. Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that is not the case and the drop in consensus weight is just a temporary glitch. I will post to the development mailing list to see if the techies can comment on this. Paying hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money for a relay that is not being used by the network is not something I will keep doing for long. I support the goals and ideology of Tor, but the project will lose me as a volunteer if consensus weight does not restore soon. Did you check whether the consensus weight *fraction* also dropped? If all consensus weights dropped by a certain factor, there's no change in the probability of clients choosing your relay at all. Take a look at Atlas' or Globe's consensus weight fraction graphs and see if they changed over the past weeks or months. All the best, Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUvV7zAAoJEJd5OEYhk8hIvWgIAJi002cwqJbZv03t67QGCs1L DlNt50+i00zoIaYw7eVZV5F6DtkO1WRRR9VRBHgfufz2q5xj1YccR5a/mMdtZvVV T1PT0b1lXox7Hhogj7SKuvYKTbpgbTZh0WIq66ysoMBS8LqY0ZFcwiLZQs9fwo/J D1F/xsPZzjgm3GiBktmQH479LZT588Y8qzt3LGpKBpu2aXQF81YLv8plbJAo9Oh7 atD4xTZlSpA7MntJ7Rnn67aChaYDn2QgERWH+b04rloU9NGhmkBXuDZxBBb4/EWo ShxOshZRNRlcicbbm8dcaHdEVpnxi1Pl7ztidkoK2jYxOSnAqVfkayWpW7BjiIs= =4doV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Karsten wrote: Did you check whether the consensus weight *fraction* also dropped? Yes, it dropped from 0.193553% to 0.00% If all consensus weights dropped by a certain factor, there's no change in the probability of clients choosing your relay at all. My relay used to push 80 Mbps, now it is doing 0.05 Mbps, so I am very certain the probability of clients choosing my relay has changed! Thanks, Bram ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more. Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in consensus weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
Hello, You are not alone with this issue ( https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2015-January/006055.html ). The weirdest part is, that consensus is fixed to exactly 20 and on Jan 06, on both nodes yours and mine the weight spiked up for a short amount and then dropped back to 20. So far there is no helpful response regarding this subject. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/6911888F83565892FE23F1B03EB501D80E1E8780 On 18.01.2015 03:53 PM, Bram de Boer wrote: All, In December consensus weight of both my nosurveillance Tor exits dropped: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 I assumed this to be related to the directory authorities tweaking consensus weight in response to the Lizard Squad annoyance around that time. However, traffic has not yet picked up yet. Testing download and upload speeds of my server both maxed out the 100 Mbps line. I have even done a complete reinstall from a fresh Ubuntu image a week ago (while keeping the old keys, as not to restart building reputation from scratch) but that doesn't seem to help either. I am renting this dedicated server from my own private money, in my spare time as I hate surveillance and spying by governments. But right now I starting to feel silly spending that much money for a Tor exit of which only 50kbps bandwidth is used. AFAIK nothing has changed on my server, so I am puzzled why consensus has dropped and was never restored again. Please advice, Thanks, Bram de Boer ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
All, In December consensus weight of both my nosurveillance Tor exits dropped: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 I assumed this to be related to the directory authorities tweaking consensus weight in response to the Lizard Squad annoyance around that time. However, traffic has not yet picked up yet. Testing download and upload speeds of my server both maxed out the 100 Mbps line. I have even done a complete reinstall from a fresh Ubuntu image a week ago (while keeping the old keys, as not to restart building reputation from scratch) but that doesn't seem to help either. I am renting this dedicated server from my own private money, in my spare time as I hate surveillance and spying by governments. But right now I starting to feel silly spending that much money for a Tor exit of which only 50kbps bandwidth is used. AFAIK nothing has changed on my server, so I am puzzled why consensus has dropped and was never restored again. Please advice, Thanks, Bram de Boer ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
There is a similar issue with some other relays: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600 https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/6911888F83565892FE23F1B03EB501D80E1E8780 There was a thread about it but nobody found out why https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2015-January/006055.html On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com wrote: All, In December consensus weight of both my nosurveillance Tor exits dropped: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127 https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365 I assumed this to be related to the directory authorities tweaking consensus weight in response to the Lizard Squad annoyance around that time. However, traffic has not yet picked up yet. Testing download and upload speeds of my server both maxed out the 100 Mbps line. I have even done a complete reinstall from a fresh Ubuntu image a week ago (while keeping the old keys, as not to restart building reputation from scratch) but that doesn't seem to help either. I am renting this dedicated server from my own private money, in my spare time as I hate surveillance and spying by governments. But right now I starting to feel silly spending that much money for a Tor exit of which only 50kbps bandwidth is used. AFAIK nothing has changed on my server, so I am puzzled why consensus has dropped and was never restored again. Please advice, Thanks, Bram de Boer ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
