So the best would be to use two raspis or your old gaming-workstation - depends on the costs for energy
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2016 um 07:55 Uhr
Von: "Roman Mamedov"
An: Manny
Cc: "Tor relays"
Betreff: Re: [tor-relays] RPi Relay Maximum Speed
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:18:56 +0200
Manny
The hardware in your raspberry is way too weak to be able to push 100 Mbit/s.
My guess is that Atlas will show somewhere just below 1 MByte for your relay.
I have tried to find cost effective hardware for a relay that is able to push
around 100 Mbit/s. All the options I have looked at turned ou
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:25:31PM +0200, torser...@datakanja.de wrote:
> for simple - political - reasons, i began contributing otherwise wasted
> bandwith to the tor network about half a year ago. And i am reading this
> list.
> If not, i am seriously reconsidering the futile attempt to engage i
Remember, a relay has to download and upload as well, so your 100Mbps link
would really only be able to _relay_ at 50Mbps anyway.
On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 AM, "Farid Joubbi" wrote:
> The hardware in your raspberry is way too weak to be able to push 100
> Mbit/s.
>
> My guess is that Atlas will show
Everyone should have full duplex by now.
So he has 200 mbit on a fast ethernet port.
Sent from my iPad
> On 12 Oct 2016, at 14:20, Tristan wrote:
>
> Remember, a relay has to download and upload as well, so your 100Mbps link
> would really only be able to _relay_ at 50Mbps anyway.
>
>
>> On
Last I heard, the Raspberry Pi was only capable of 100Mbps because the
ethernet port is on the same bus as the USB ports, and the chipset used
only supports 100Mbps. I could be wrong though.
On Oct 12, 2016 7:42 AM, "Markus Koch" wrote:
> Everyone should have full duplex by now.
>
> So he has 20
okay, pls ignore my post.
2016-10-12 14:49 GMT+02:00 Tristan :
> Last I heard, the Raspberry Pi was only capable of 100Mbps because the
> ethernet port is on the same bus as the USB ports, and the chipset used only
> supports 100Mbps. I could be wrong though.
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2016 7:42 AM, "Markus
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:20:25 -0500
Tristan wrote:
> Remember, a relay has to download and upload as well, so your 100Mbps link
> would really only be able to _relay_ at 50Mbps anyway.
The OP mentioned they have "1gbit symmetric connection at home", i.e.
1000 Mbit in, 1000 out.
Whether or not th
> Update on my Azure-Exit:
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0534295ACFD5A84312183B41D3FB275E9ADD9EE2
> It already has consensus weight 1200 after less than two weeks and its
> raising.
> Everyone should use this option to give the TOR-Network a good push. After my
> free time has finished,
> There is also significant value to making a fresh start: new SSH keys
> and new relay keys mean that even if your old provider has a backup,
> or your old relay was compromised, or you have a backup of your keys,
> it's not much use to anyone. Particularly on an exit, your traffic
> will recover
> Thank you for the information! Now I know why.
>
> Do you happen to know if the people on the discussion you linked to
> came to a conclusion about why OpenBSD relays perform not as well as
> Linuxes? Reading the whole thread made me believe that there is
> probably another bottle neck there too
Hi!
On 12.10.2016 07:18, Manny wrote:
> Oh and since I'm bugging you anyways - would it be useful to add ORPort
> [IPv6] as well? (same port as for 4 i guess?)
Yes, I've done this already. There are only a few number of IPv6
Clients, but I guess it would be useful. Most of the time, there are the
I do see kind of stagnation compared to other Exits in the same time frame.
So I wondered what the connectivity is ?
Its hard to find information about bandwidth and monthly traffic volume in
regard to prices and location regarding Azure?
Am 12.10.2016 um 18:15 schrieb nusenu:
>> Update on my
Hi!
On 12.10.2016 07:18, Manny wrote:
> Oh and since I'm bugging you anyways - would it be useful to add ORPort
> [IPv6] as well? (same port as for 4 i guess?)
Yes, I've done this already. There are only a few number of IPv6
Clients, but I guess it would be useful. Most of the time, there are the
> On 13 Oct 2016, at 06:07, diffusae wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 12.10.2016 07:18, Manny wrote:
>> Oh and since I'm bugging you anyways - would it be useful to add ORPort
>> [IPv6] as well? (same port as for 4 i guess?)
>
> Yes, I've done this already. There are only a few number of IPv6
> Clients,
Have been running an obfs3 bridge for a while. Since I was building a new
Debian server wanted to add obfs4, but when I configure TBB to point to
the obfs4 port [Z] I get "general SOCKS failure" in the TBB log. Changing
it back to use obfs3 and port [Y] works fine. How can I fix it so obfs4
works t
> On 13 Oct 2016, at 10:53, p...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
> Have been running an obfs3 bridge for a while. Since I was building a new
> Debian server wanted to add obfs4, but when I configure TBB to point to
> the obfs4 port [Z] I get "general SOCKS failure" in the TBB log. Changing
> it back to use
>
>> On 13 Oct 2016, at 10:53, p...@sigaint.org wrote:
>>
...
>>
>> ServerTransportPlugin obfs3 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy managed
>
> "teor" wrote:
> Here, you ask obfs4proxy yo of obfs3 for you, but not obfs4.
> Try obfs3,obfs4 instead.
>
> And then give tor browser the full line from the bridge l
18 matches
Mail list logo
