Re: [tor-relays] DigitalOcean bandwidth billing changes

They are slowly becoming an AWS Clone - they keep adding more and more services making the UI Confusing. Now they've even copied AWSs bill per GB. What's next? Ralph Seichter: > On 02.05.18 18:17, mick wrote: > >> Following this I went back to Rafael Rosa, the Product Manager at >> DigitalOcean

Re: [tor-relays] DigitalOcean bandwidth billing changes

On 02.05.18 18:17, mick wrote: > Following this I went back to Rafael Rosa, the Product Manager at > DigitalOcean who originally sent the email about the changes seeking > clarification. I also had a back-and-forth with DigitalOcean support staff. Sadly, no revelations ensued, so I'll be closing

Re: [tor-relays] Help With Autoupdating Tor Software

Hi, On 02/05/18 19:20, Keifer Bly wrote: > One more question, if I were to restart my relay now, would that mean that my > mid time between failures would NOT get closer to 6 days? That’s what is at > now. Assuming that you just restart it and it comes right back up again, and it's for the

Re: [tor-relays] Help With Autoupdating Tor Software

One more question, if I were to restart my relay now, would that mean that my mid time between failures would NOT get closer to 6 days? That’s what is at now. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone > On May 2, 2018, at 2:33 AM, teor wrote: > > >>> On 2 May 2018, at 19:20, Iain

Re: [tor-relays] DigitalOcean bandwidth billing changes

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:15:35 + Cody Logan allegedly wrote: > Regarding grandfathered accounts, section 3.7 of their terms of > service is worth a closer look: > > “Subscribers of Grandfathered Accounts must NOT: (i) run Torrents for > download or Seed Servers, TOR, or

Re: [tor-relays] Help With Autoupdating Tor Software

> On 2 May 2018, at 19:20, Iain Learmonth wrote: > >> On 02/05/18 09:50, teor wrote: >> Being in the consensus is called "Running", but what it actually means is >> that a majority of directory authorities found your relay reachable. >> >> So perhaps we could use: >> *

Re: [tor-relays] Help With Autoupdating Tor Software

Hi, On 02/05/18 09:50, teor wrote: > Being in the consensus is called "Running", but what it actually means is > that a majority of directory authorities found your relay reachable. > > So perhaps we could use: > * uptime for the amount of time since the tor process started > * reachable time

Re: [tor-relays] Help With Autoupdating Tor Software

> On 2 May 2018, at 18:32, Iain Learmonth wrote: > >> On 02/05/18 02:09, Keifer Bly wrote: >> My suspicion is that my posted uptime was retained because I did not >> restart the relay software while my router firmware was updating (it was >> offline for about 2 hours), but

Re: [tor-relays] Help With Autoupdating Tor Software

Hi, On 02/05/18 02:09, Keifer Bly wrote: > My suspicion is that my posted uptime was retained because I did not > restart the relay software while my router firmware was updating (it was > offline for about 2 hours), but it thought I’d share this little thing I > noticed. You're correct. The

Re: [tor-relays] Info about Provider Scaleway and cheap "ARM server"

On Wed, 02 May 2018 04:20:57 -0400 Artur Pedziwilk wrote: > > https://www.scaleway.com/baremetal-cloud-servers/ > > > > My order was "C1 - A true metal ARM server running in the cloud." > > > > "4 Dedicated ARM Cores, 2GB Memory, 50GB SSD Disk /

Re: [tor-relays] Info about Provider Scaleway and cheap "ARM server"

> On 1 May 2018, at 22:53, Olaf Grimm wrote: > > Dear readers, > > I tried to use different operating systems and hardware architectures > for my Tor relays for diversity. So I came to the Parisian provider > Scaleways, which has a cheap offer for ARM servers for € 2.99 per