Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Hi, No, they will be 2 almost identical VMs: clone, change IP, host & nick, get the FP, update the family on both VMs and reload configs BTW: thank you all for the feedback! P. 2016-12-12 7:08 GMT+01:00 balbea16 : > Hi > Are you actually talking about identical relays, i.e.

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Hi Tim,TNX for your fast response. That was more or less what I thought already. Mike Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: teor Datum: 12.12.16 07:28 (GMT+01:00) An: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Betreff: Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX >

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 17:08, balbea16 wrote: > > Hi > Are you actually talking about identical relays, i.e. with the same > fingerprint? That would be interessting for me, as I'd like to run a second > Rasp Pi in parallel for redundency reasons. > Mike Please don't run a

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Hi Are you actually talking about identical relays, i.e. with the same fingerprint? That would be interessting for me, as I'd like to run a second Rasp Pi in parallel for redundency reasons.Mike Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Patrick DERWAEL Datum:

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Hi Patrick, I recommend that you just try it. Many people run several instances on the same hardware (even on same VMs) to saturate their line. You can just try if running a second relay will consume more bw. >> - basically, would it have any significant added value to the network? I can stress

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Well, I have 100MB guaranteed to the internet and a 1 GIG NIC, the VM CPU is used at 40% (average) I guess I will fire a second VM and see what the total bandwidth result is... 2016-12-11 18:27 GMT+01:00 s7r : > Hello, > > Thanks for running relays. > > > Patrick DERWAEL wrote:

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

John, The host has 32GB RAM& 4 CPUs I have allocated 2GB & 2CPUs to my VM As the VM CPU usage is +/-40%, I'm not sure if I should reduce to 1CPU (would it then be used at 80% average?) P. 2016-12-11 18:22 GMT+01:00 John Ricketts : > Patrick, > > I run all of my relays under

Re: [tor-relays] All I want for Chrismas is a bloody t-shirt

All, > We learnt a lot from doing it last year, and we have plans to make it more efficient this year. (And get more people on it.) We have already gone from having 0 paid people on it, to having 1 paid person on it (and they do many other tasks as well). I think we are getting more to help over

Re: [tor-relays] Network scan results for CVE-2016-5696 / RFC5961

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 09:46, niftybunny wrote: > > Playing devils advocate here. > > People want the T-Shirts. Its free advertisement for Tor. Perhaps it would be > great if people could get T-Shirts in > exchange for other goods. Like this: > >

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

On 12/11/2016 1:43 PM, Rana wrote: >> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana wrote: >> >> OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me >> [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ] >> >> The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that

Re: [tor-relays] Network scan results for CVE-2016-5696 / RFC5961

Playing devils advocate here. People want the T-Shirts. Its free advertisement for Tor. Perhaps it would be great if people could get T-Shirts in exchange for other goods. Like this: http://i.imgur.com/9Y8p7.gif A long time ago this was possible:

Re: [tor-relays] The t-shirt organization thingy

> Hi Moritz, > > I do understand that it's hard to run an organization with too few > people, it's my daily life working for staff at my university (I am the > only administrator for 16 tablets, 34 laptops, 3 servers and 7 > thinclients, and we are not allowed to use centralized tools, I have to

Re: [tor-relays] The t-shirt organization thingy (was: Network scan results for CVE-2016-5696 / RFC5961)

On 2016-12-11 at 22:50, Moritz Bartl wrote: > You need to email tshirts@, include your fingerprints, and then wait > weeks or months until the one poor person that is processing all the > requests and all the requests from the campaign and also has other hats > to get to it. > > It's a thank you

Re: [tor-relays] ansible for tor relay ops

> >> Isn’t it somehow dangerous in the area we operate, to rely on a piece >> of software created more or less by a single person? > > Thanks for this question. Can you give a few examples for "dangerous" in > the context of your question so I might be able to address your concerns > more

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 08:43, Rana wrote: > >>> >>> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana wrote: >>> >>> OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me >>> [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ] >>> >>> The one answer of

Re: [tor-relays] Network scan results for CVE-2016-5696 / RFC5961

On 12/10/2016 09:52 PM, pa011 wrote: >> btw, it would be awesome to give away t-shirts or something for running >> diverse relays. > that was a least a promise the year ago (its not any more) > - and I believe one should stand to his promises I don't know where this idea is coming from that it's

Re: [tor-relays] Draft Fallback Directory List

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 05:08, Andrew Deason wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 23:45:42 +1100 > teor wrote: > >> One or more of your relays have been selected as fallback directory >> mirrors[0] for the next tor release. Please

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana wrote: > > OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me > [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ] > > The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that > arm actually means Kbytes/sec and

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 01:56, Rana wrote: > > OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even > though I "lack programming skills" :) ] > > The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm > actually means Kbytes/sec and

[tor-relays] ansible for tor relay ops

> You are quite often referring to Ansible which is new to me. Is there > a permanent free version around to let your > https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor run on it? Yes ansible is free software and you can install it with your preferred package manager (depending what OS you use). >

Re: [tor-relays] Draft Fallback Directory List

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 23:45:42 +1100 teor wrote: > One or more of your relays have been selected as fallback directory > mirrors[0] for the next tor release. Please keep the relay available on > the same addresses, ports, and identity key

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Hello, Thanks for running relays. Patrick DERWAEL wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm running a relay in a VM on a physical server which is largely under used > Current advertised bandwidth 26MB, consensus 76500 > I'm considering running a second relay (2nd VM) on the very same > hardware, but this

Re: [tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Patrick, I run all of my relays under VMware and I don't have any issues at all. How many CPUs do you have in the physical server and how many virtual CPUs do you have assigned to the VM? John On Dec 11, 2016, at 11:19, Patrick DERWAEL > wrote:

[tor-relays] Second relay on same ESX

Hi guys, I'm running a relay in a VM on a physical server which is largely under used Current advertised bandwidth 26MB, consensus 76500 I'm considering running a second relay (2nd VM) on the very same hardware, but this brings a few questions: - is there any issue running it at the same

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

OK Tim thanks for the answers, I appreciate your patience with me [even though I "lack programming skills" :) ] The one answer of yours that still does not make sense to me is that arm actually means Kbytes/sec and not kbits/sec when it writes Kb/s I have arm reporting average of at least

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

> On 12 Dec. 2016, at 00:08, Rana wrote: > >>> On 10 Dec. 2016, at 07:12, Rana wrote: >>> >>> My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are >>> inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: >>> Atlas “advertised”

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

>> On 10 Dec. 2016, at 07:12, Rana wrote: >> >> My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are >> inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: >> Atlas “advertised” (which is actually supposed to be “measured”?: 100 KB/s >> =

[tor-relays] Draft Fallback Directory List

(This is a copy of the email I BCC'd to each relay operator on the draft fallback directory list. Please email me to add your relays.) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Dear Tor Relay Operator, One or more of your relays have been selected as fallback directory mirrors[0] for the

Re: [tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

> On 10 Dec. 2016, at 07:12, Rana wrote: > > My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are > inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: > > > Atlas “advertised” (which is actually supposed to be “measured”?: 100 KB/s > =

[tor-relays] Inconsistent BW measurements of unused relay

My relay remains severely under-used. One thing that bothers me are inconsistent bandwidth measurements. Here they are: Atlas "advertised" (which is actually supposed to be "measured"?: 100 KB/s = ~ 800,000 bit/s "I have sent" reported in Tor log: on the