Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

On 3 May 2018, at 06:41, nusenu wrote: >> What are the guidelines to avoid getting blocked by the tor network? > > stay under the public thresholds? > https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual-dev.html.en#_denial_of_service_mitigation_options Those are the defaults.

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

> can you let me know the start and end date of the scan (2018-03-12?) so I can > check how many of > the relays you scanned (the top 100 relays by cw? at the time) that scan only took an hour or so to perform and I posted the e-mail minutes after the scan, so you can refer to the date in the

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

> I think that many of my previous scans were not useful and > showed inaccurate I'm glad that it turned out that these previous results might have been inaccurate (because the results were scary if found to be accurate) > results because the IP address i was scanning > from might have gotten

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

I think that many of my previous scans were not useful and showed inaccurate results because the IP address i was scanning from might have gotten black listed by dir-auths? or perhaps blocked by many relays by the anti-denial-of-service mechanisms in tor? i got rid of that virtual server and lost

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

Greetings, ( Meejah and I made txtorcon report the reason for circuit build failures here: https://github.com/meejah/txtorcon/pull/299 My scanner now uses this txtorcon feature: https://github.com/david415/tor_partition_scanner ) I used a collector consensus file: 2018-04-27-19-00-00-consensus

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

I did another scan, this time with 3 seconds between each circuit build and set the max connections to 50 with similar results as yesterday: 9354 failure 2 timeout 544 success most of the circuit build failures happened in under a second: echo "select (end_time - start_time) / 1000 as duration

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

teor writes: > And where did you scan *from*? > (It's hard to interpret the results without the latency and quality of your > client connection.) If I correctly understand what David's scanner is doing, so long as "a" connection can make it to the first hop properly any

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

dawuud writes: > Yes I am sure it failed. It would be cool if txtorcon can expose the > 'reason' but I think that it cannot. I suppose it will show up in the > tor log file if I set it to debug logging. txtorcon does expose both the 'reason' and the 'remote_reason' flags

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

dawuud writes: >> your IP address. Try to stay under 50 connections to the same >> relay from your IP address. > hmm OK. I can limit the number of concurrenct circuits that are being > built but I do not believe that txtorcon let's me control the number > of "connections"

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

> And where did you scan *from*? > (It's hard to interpret the results without the latency and quality of your > client connection.) It turns out I am recording circuit build latency. It is unclear to me exactly what you'd like me to do with this information however here's a some silly queries:

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

> Other questions I'd want to investigate: > > (A) Are the failures consistent, or intermittent? That is, does a > failed link always fail, or only sometimes? Yes this is what our new testing methodology should support. My current scanner is not sufficient. We want to improve it. > (B) Are you

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

> How much worse? During the Montreal tor dev meeting I counted 1947 circuit build failures. https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2017-October/001492.html > And where did you scan *from*? I scaned from a server in the Netherlands. > (It's hard to interpret the results without

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 02:55:12AM +, dawuud wrote: > Out of 9900 possible two hop tor circuits among the top 100 tor relays > only 935 circuit builds have succeeded. This is way worse than the last > time I sent a report 6 months ago during the Montreal tor dev meeting. The next step here

Re: [tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

> On 13 Mar 2018, at 03:55, dawuud wrote: > > Out of 9900 possible two hop tor circuits among the top 100 tor relays > only 935 circuit builds have succeeded. This is way worse than the last > time I sent a report 6 months ago during the Montreal tor dev meeting. How much

[tor-dev] connectivity failure for top 100 relays

Out of 9900 possible two hop tor circuits among the top 100 tor relays only 935 circuit builds have succeeded. This is way worse than the last time I sent a report 6 months ago during the Montreal tor dev meeting. Here's the scanner I use: https://github.com/david415/tor_partition_scanner (I