Re: [tor-relays] Question regarding exit sizing

> What scenario is better for the network - adding five 100mbps nodes, or one > 500 mbps node? Are we talking bare metal or VPS? A VPS will probably bottleneck on RAM or CPU before hitting 500 Mpbs. Bare metal would stand a chance with the right hardware and tuning, but I wouldn't assume

[tor-relays] Question regarding exit sizing

Hello, I have a question regarding relay sizing to add additional nodes to the network. What scenario is better for the network - adding five 100mbps nodes, or one 500 mbps node? Let’s keep it easy and say all five of those 100 mbps nodes would be in the same datacenter, configured in the same

[tor-relays] TorAtlas/Relay Search: false-positive warnings about outdated tor version eliminated

I'd like to highlight a small but important change Iain (Atlas developer) implemented and deployed today on atlas. Previously there was a rare edge case where atlas would say that your relay runs an outdated version (with the big red banner some of you might know) even though you actually did

Re: [tor-relays] Disable CellStatistics !!!

Am 04-Feb-18 um 17:13 schrieb starlight.201...@binnacle.cx: > After many crashes and much pain, I determined that > having CellStatistics enabled causes a busy relay > to consume at least two or three _gigabytes_ of > additional memory. Relay operators with less than > 16GB per instance are

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:37:09PM +0100, niftybunny wrote: > Minimum is: > > accept *:53 > accept *:80 > accept *:443 (A) Correct, we recently changed it so both 80 and 443 are required: https://bugs.torproject.org/23637 (B) Port 53 has nothing to do with the exit flag, and it goes mostly

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

niftybunny: > reject 80 > > Thats why. good catch :) yes, I can confirm that, but it was already there on 2018-01-19 13:00 so on that day I guess dir auths updated to the version enforcing 80+443 for exit flag -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_ signature.asc

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

Minimum is: accept *:53 accept *:80 accept *:443 > On 9. Feb 2018, at 19:35, Paul wrote: > > > > Am 09.02.2018 um 19:28 schrieb niftybunny: >> reject 80 >> >> Thats why. > > > Was there a change of rules on that day? > Reject 80 was always the case in those settings. > >

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

Am 09.02.2018 um 19:28 schrieb niftybunny: > reject 80 > > Thats why. Was there a change of rules on that day? Reject 80 was always the case in those settings. > >> On 9. Feb 2018, at 19:25, nusenu wrote: >> >> >> >> Paul: >>> What could bring several exits at

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

reject 80 Thats why. > On 9. Feb 2018, at 19:25, nusenu wrote: > > > > Paul: >> What could bring several exits at different providers and different >> operating systems (Linux and FreeBSD) down on the same day, Jan 21st? >> >> Since, while they still run as relays,

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

Paul: > What could bring several exits at different providers and different operating > systems (Linux and FreeBSD) down on the same day, Jan 21st? > > Since, while they still run as relays, they don’t show as exits any more > without any change from my side. > > They do run on Tor 0.3.1.9

Re: [tor-relays] Exits lost their function

On 09 Feb (19:06:23), Paul wrote: > What could bring several exits at different providers and different operating > systems (Linux and FreeBSD) down on the same day, Jan 21st? > > Since, while they still run as relays, they don’t show as exits any more > without any change from my side. > >

[tor-relays] Exits lost their function

What could bring several exits at different providers and different operating systems (Linux and FreeBSD) down on the same day, Jan 21st? Since, while they still run as relays, they don’t show as exits any more without any change from my side. They do run on Tor 0.3.1.9 or 0.3.2.9 in the same