> On 21 Jul 2016, at 05:20, Me wrote:
> So what are we going to do when Green shuts down the Bridge Authority server
> next month? Will it have a serious effect, or will there be any apparent
> issues or slowdowns?
We'll have to act before that. We're currently looking for
a new operator for t
> On 21 Aug 2016, at 13:11, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> I have enabled daily accounting on a non-exit Tor relay some days ago.
> On the first day, the transfer threshold was reached and the relay
> entered hibernation for a few hours, as expected. On the next day, I
> reduced Rela
> On 09 Dec 2016, at 09:34, teor wrote:
>
>
>> On 8 Dec. 2016, at 22:08, Sec INT wrote:
>>
>> US just has alot of people trying to exit there - so its always busy
>
> Tor clients choose exits at random, based on the ports the exit allows.
> They *do not* try to find an exit close to the site
Hi there,
I am one of the directory authority operators, so while I don't
claim to know what the collective community wants, I am one of
the people who are asked to make these decisions.
> On 22 Dec 2016, at 10:25, Rana wrote:
>
> So my question to the community is as follows: does the Tor comm
> On 30 Dec 2016, at 19:26, mistral.re...@posteo.net wrote:
>
> Hello all, a newbie question:
>
> assuming that I want to shut down and restart a running tor-relay (for
> whatever reason; e.g. a linux reboot is required) - is it fine to just shut
> down the relay or is there a nicer, more tor-
> On 02 Jan 2017, at 07:28, Rana wrote:
> I think I already covered the "if it exists" part. Sticking to the original
> (old) design doc of Tor is not a practically useful strategy. I believe that
> Tor has MOSTLY such strong adversaries, the others do not matter much. You do
> not really use
> On 05 Jan 2017, at 22:29, anondroid wrote:
>
> I just set up a handful of new relays, and all of them have something like
> the following in their logs:
>
> [WARN] http status 502 ("Bad Gateway") reason unexpected while uploading
> descriptor to server '154.35.175.225:80'
> [WARN] Recei
> On 05 Jan 2017, at 23:26, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Signed PGP part
> On 01/05/2017 10:40 PM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
> > They send notifications within 10
> > minutes of the beginning of the hour.
> So, if the issue happens at the 11th minute - it would appear 1 hour befo
Hi Alan,
> On 11. Jun 2017, at 21:22, Alan wrote:
> I just need some advice. I'm running 3 relays, one is called Andromeda.
> Today I find out there is another relay called Andromeda.
>
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/Andromeda
> mine is running from ip 144.217.161.119
>
> Is it a proble
Hi there,
> On 17. Sep 2017, at 01:19, Graeme Neilson wrote:
>
> I am running a relay but 4 out of 8 directory authorities appear to being
> blocked by my ISP.
> There is no route to the blocked authorities and the last responding tcp
> traceroute hop is an ISP machine. There are routes via I
Hi there,
> On 12. Oct 2017, at 20:43, Scott Bennett wrote:
> teor wrote:
>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 13:21, Toralf F?rster wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
On 10/11/2017 10:08 AM, Dylan Issa wrote:
Did you set MyFamily using nicknames of the key?
>
Hi there,
> On 30. Oct 2017, at 22:12, Paul Templeton wrote:
>
> Here Here
>
> From: "Tor Node Admin @ SechsNullDrei.org"
> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 9:58:49 PM
> Subject: [tor-relays] Thank you to directory operators
>
> Good morning,
>
> Relay ope
> On 31. Oct 2017, at 00:19, Damian Johnson wrote:
>
>> I think I've found a bug with the Connections pane. nyx appears to munge all
>> the connections into "outbound", like:
>>
>> Connections (4852 outbound, 1 control):
>>
>> Whereas arm on the same system displays them correctly like:
>>
>
Hey,
> On 14. Nov 2017, at 19:00, teor wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2017, at 02:41, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
>
>>> On 14/11/17 15:35, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>>> On 14.11.17 13:52, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
>>> I also notice that the "new look" does not work in Safari 11 on macOS
>>> 10.13.1 (High Sierra).
> On 14. Nov 2017, at 19:26, teor wrote:
>
>
>> On 15 Nov 2017, at 05:05, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>>> On 14. Nov 2017, at 19:00, teor wrote:
>>> On 15 Nov 2017, at 02:41, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> On 14. Dec 2017, at 23:04, Evangelos Meintasis
> wrote:
>
> Hello to all,
> I got this warning :
> [warn] Tor is running as an exit relay. If you did not want this behavior,
> please set the ExitRelay option to 0.
>
> But in /etc/tor/torrc file, I can not locate an y EXITRELAY option.
> Sh
> On 20. Dec 2017, at 22:46, Fabian A. Santiago
> wrote:
>>> so how i first noticed was when i couldn't browse to my dirport readme html
>>> page after a tor
>>> restart. are you saying when it normally hibernates, that page goes down
>>> too?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> When Tor hibernates, it doesn't
> On 11. Jan 2018, at 20:44, Dmitrii Tcvetkov wrote:
>
>>>MyFamily **must** be set correctly if you run more than one
>>> relay or bridge. (That is, every relay should list all the others
>>> as described above.)
>
> So if I run some relays and also some bridges I must to specify
> unhashed
> On 14. Jan 2018, at 10:56, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>
> On 12.01.2018 17:05, nusenu wrote:
>
>> The motivation for this is that there are a lot of relays (>3000)
>> running outdated tor releases.
>
> This reminds me that I wanted to ask about package updates:
>
> I compile Tor from the source
> On 7. Feb 2018, at 18:55, Geoff Down wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>
>> Possible disadvantages are:
>> - If somebody runs a relay and a bridge, both with the same contact
>> information, a censoring adversary might guess that the bridge might run
>>
Hi there,
I don't want to declare it a showstopper outright, but:
> On 8. Feb 2018, at 09:42, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>
> These sound like variants of the first disadvantage listed above. There
> are two additional assumptions in here, though:
>
> 1) bridge operators use the same or a similar e
> On 19. Feb 2018, at 22:38, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
>
> noticed gablemoo's BW scanner is offline and the entry for it at
>
> https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#bwauthstatus
>
> was removed; is it gone or just taking an extended break?
It is broken because the current machi
> On 17. Mar 2018, at 11:05, Toralf Förster wrote:
>
> caused by both of the 2 Tor exits here at a Linux server.
>
> I do wonder what both processes do exactly 2 minutaes past each hour for
> about half a minute?
Maybe consensus diff calculation?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed wi
> On 31. Mar 2018, at 14:45, Ole Rydahl wrote:
> Disabled IPv6 some hours ago (nyx/menu/reset tor) with no change on the moods
> of 6 of the muses. They still don't consider me "stable".
The respective dirauths aren't muses, they simply function as they
are designed - they treat relays with unr
> On 15. Apr 2018, at 10:03, Ole Rydahl wrote:
> As far as I can see, there is a quite large difference in the required
> "running" period between the 9 directory authorities. I interpreted that as
> an issue with my setup. 3 authorities voted stable after a few days, while
> the 6 remaining n
Hi,
> On 15. Apr 2018, at 20:20, Ole Rydahl wrote:
> It's my experience that announcing ipv6 capability and actually not
> providing - results in not being part of the cached consensus since only 3
> authorities acknowledge your relay as running.
>
> My situation was different all 9 directory au
> On 13. May 2018, at 18:01, Olaf Grimm wrote:
>
> Dear Tor controllers,
>
>
> For some time now I have relays in different locations and with
> different systems.
> All relays have the same torrc, except nickname.
> The following list shows the excerpt from metrics.torproject.org.
>
> Hydra1
On 09 Jul 2014, at 18:38, kingqueen wrote:
> hi,
>
> Checking the log of my relay, I see that sometimes it reloads its
> configuration from what it says is a HUP signal.
>
> An example:
>
> "06:40:57 [NOTICE] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and
> resetting internal state."
>
>
On 10 Aug 2014, at 19:00, Tim Semeijn wrote:
> > I really like this and I've added an address to my exits (4.2% of
> > total exit consensus). However, for this to really kick off I'd
> > recommend adding visibility on how many donations were received
> > and how it was distributed across relays.
Hi Tim,
On 16 Aug 2014, at 23:53, Tim wrote:
> I'm running a relay on a similarly "dynamic" IP.
> If the line goes down, I'm reallocated a new one. But otherwise the IP is
> stable.
> If I don't notice the change, I notice the traffic drop, then I update the
> torrc, and everything works again.
Hi Tim,
> Sebastien, I run a relay on a machine that has an internal private IP, behind
> a NAT router with a public IP.
>
> In my experience, I need to specify the NAT router's public IP in the torrc,
> otherwise tor doesn't include it in the router descriptor it submits to the
> consensus.
Hi,
On 02 Sep 2014, at 21:19, Marcin Gondek wrote:
> I just looking on the logs and see:
>
> ==cut==
> Sep 02 21:03:54.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received
> NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:443. It seems that our
> clock is behind by 1 hours, 24 minutes
On 11 Sep 2014, at 21:20, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> Did you already look at Server4You?
> oops, not now, wiki discouraged me at the first glance - will check
I have the worst possible expierences with that company and hosting
servers there. Would not recommend it at all. This includes:
- fake v
On 20 Sep 2014, at 03:26, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Hijack thread:
> So what is the advice to get a relay used more? Currently my relay
> won't even get close to the AccountingMax (4TB/mo) even though the
> BandwidthRate is set high enough (3MB/s). It seems like the network
> considers my AdvertisedB
On 25 Sep 2014, at 09:21, Mike Perry wrote:
> I really need identity fingerprints to see how much traffic your node is
> actually pushing, what its consensus weight is, when and how often it is
> hibernating, if it is otherwise strangely rate limited, etc.
All nonexits since I started hosting g
On 28 Sep 2014, at 17:41, Pascal wrote:
> There are some nice statistics at https://metrics.torproject.org about node
> types. As of 9/24/14 the total advertized bandwidth for guards was 8.6Gbps,
> exits 4Gbps, and middles 2Gbps. If you want to distribute tips
> proportionally, based upon t
Hi Pascal,
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:16, Pascal wrote:
> Microdescriptors (Tor >0.2.3.x) broke the inclusion of specific IPs in exit
> policies (exit enclaving). Did they break the exclusion of specific IPs in
> exit policies as well?
No, that's a local choice by the relay and it will prevent exi
Hi Pascal,
On 05 Dec 2014, at 04:26, Pascal wrote:
> On 12/4/2014 3:50 PM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>> No, that's a local choice by the relay and it will prevent exiting to
>> IPs that it disallows in its config.
>
> Yes, but does it have a way of telling clien
Hey there,
On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:03, eric gisse wrote:
> This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node.
>
> Weird.
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer
> wrote:
>> Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has
>> completed now, and conta
On 20 Jan 2015, at 22:58, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> We've already known about this in the context of "the bandwidth
> authority scripts are very poorly tuned for the changes that have
> happened in the Tor network since the scripts were written, so they
> vote wildly varying numbers for relays".
On 21 Jan 2015, at 05:10, eric gisse wrote:
> Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable?
I don't think it was historically like that.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailma
Hi Bandie,
> On 08 Apr 2015, at 00:22, Bandie Kojote wrote:
> Dear list admins,
>
> I didn't subscribe to the tor-relay mailing list to receive spam.
> Please do something against this. Maybe mark this list _with a big sign_ that
> the people know, that this is for operators only, or drop non-su
Hi Tim,
> On 12 May 2015, at 21:52, Tim Semeijn wrote:
> In my venture to find more ISPs to house Tor Exit nodes I have
> recently set up a node in Switzerland (Private Layer - 179.43.160.41).
> When running Tor 6 out of 9 Authdirs are rejecting the node:
thanks for running a relay. The IP addre
Hi,
> On 16 Sep 2015, at 05:22, nobody wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am looking at renting a dedicated server on a unmetered 100 Mbit/s
> connection, but the CPU is a Intel G850, which is old (Q2 2011) and does
> not have AES-NI. Will this CPU be too slow to make use of the bandwidth?
I'm currently ru
Hi there,
> On 17 Dec 2015, at 15:07, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> In December 2015, we created a list of ~400 candidate fallbacks.
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/attachment/ticket/15775/fallback_dirs.inc
>
> If your relay is on this list, and you expect it to be on the same IP
> address(
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:23, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
>
> Lately 'gabelmoo' had been bouncing down and up like a ping-pong ball.
>
> Because gabelmoo is a BWauth (of which only five exist) as well as a normal
> authority, the impact is greater than if it did not participate in bandwid
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:10, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
>
> At 18:55 1/21/2016 +0100, you wrote:
>> Gabelmoo is running 0.2.7.6. . .
>
> Thank you for replying.
>
> I saw earlier that moria1 ran into this
> and decided to wait on 0.2.7 for my
> relay, though I suppose the issue is
> spe
> On 30 Mar 2016, at 23:08, cacahu...@autistici.org wrote:
> Hahahahahahaha ...
> *draws breath*
> Have you tried GB as the country code? I think UK might be Ukraine.
> ... hahahahaha ...
There really is no need to make fun of someone who made an honest
mistake and asked about it. Your post is ne
> On 06 Jul 2016, at 04:29, Ivan Markin wrote:
>
> simon:
>> If I understood the documentation correctly, as a node operator I can't
>> blacklist hosts individually (unless I'm putting them into MyFamily,
>> which I don't want to).
>
> AFAIK, there is no option in tor itself to exclude relays f
On Jul 7, 2011, at 1:48 AM, Tomas Sironi wrote:
> Hi people. In the Tor manual, the next options are specified:
Hi Tomas,
thanks for running a relay!
> - BandwidthRate
> - RelayBandwidthRate
>
> However i don't get to see the difference between those two. I imagined the
> first one is the b
On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Klaus Layer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My relays suddenly show the following warnings:
>
> "Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit."
>
> Is this something I should worry about?
>
> I am wondering why several of my relays shows that at nearly the same ti
On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Hi Sambuddho,
>
> On 8/13/11 12:11 AM, Sambuddho Chakravarty wrote:
>> I see some relays with uptimes over 100 days (eg. Pandora14), but they
>> don't have the stable flag enabled ... In the FAQ page it says that relays
>> are marked stable
On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Steve Snyder wrote:
> I have a relay with a fixed monthly bandwidth limit, so I expect the relay to
> hibernate toward the end of the month. (I'm trying to spread the bandwidth
> out over the month, but actual relay utilization cannot be estimated
> accurately.)
>
On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Steve Snyder wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand how the relay accounting limit is calculated.
>
> The manual says that you might specify an AccountingMax limit of 1 GB, a
> ceiling that would be applied to each of the input and output traffic. The
> manual also say
On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Nils Vogels wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 14:44, Orionjur Tor-admin
> wrote:
>> On 10.11.2011 11:48, David wrote:
>>> I just wanted to let everyone know that my two Tor nodes have been
>>> raided (+all my computer equipment and everything that could store data).
>
On Dec 4, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
> About an hour and a half ago, my node issued the following message.
>
> Dec 04 04:03:56.685 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or
> non-edge circuit.
>
> What does it mean? And what triggers it? Is it attempting to use a rel
On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
> The last consensus document expired about 15 hours ago. I understand
> that the authority operators and tor developers are probably occupied with
> fixing whatever is the trouble, but if someone in that group of individuals
> can spare a mom
On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Thanks, Sebastian, for the very quick reply.
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 15:12:25 +0100 Sebastian Hahn
> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>The last consensus document expired about 15
On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Klaus Layer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my relays are getting 500 error while fetching data from authority dizum.
>
> Can someone explain what is happening with this tor authority?
>
> Regards,
>
> Klaus
>
> 14:25:51 [WARN] Received http status code 500 ("Internal Server Err
On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Klaus Layer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> my relays are getting 500 error while fetching data from authority dizum.
>>
>> Can someone explain what is happening with this tor authority?
>&
On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Klaus Layer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just because I am curious: can someone from the tor authority
> operators please explain what is going on the last days with
> tor authorities. This morning (europe) ides is not available.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Klaus
We've had quite a bit
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Klaus Layer wrote:
> Sebastian Hahn wrote on 13.01.2012:
>>
>> We've had quite a bit of trouble making a consensus in the past few
>> days, tho these issues have been resolved as of two days ago or so.
>> There were quite a few main
On Jan 13, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Andrew Lewis wrote:
> Because alpha tends to be pretty stable with tor, and the latest security
> fixes are in alpha a lot sooner.
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Steve Snyder wrote:
>> On 01/13/2012 05:27 AM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>>>
On Jan 13, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Nils Vogels wrote:
> Hey Sebastian, Roger,
> On 13/01/2012, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I see. ides not having a current consensus is different from ides
>> being down. Ides still is running the stable Tor version and needs to be
>
On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Klaus Layer wrote:
> Sebastian Hahn wrote on 13.01.2012:
>
>>
>> Ah, I see. ides not having a current consensus is different from ides
>> being down. Ides still is running the stable Tor version and needs to be
>> upgraded to 0.2.3
On Jan 20, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
> Am Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:07:39 -0800
> schrieb Damian Johnson :
>
> Hi Damian,
>
>> Hi all. As per ticket 4788 [1] we'll soon be removing relays that are
>> out of date and no longer safe to run, which includes anything older
>> than version
On Mar 31, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to use the "hardware accel" feature with the actual tor alpha
> version 0.2.3.12-alpha1. My CPUs support the Intel AES NI function
> and the kernel module is enabled and running well.
>
> Im running OpenSSL 1.0.1, the debian
On Apr 1, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
oh hai.
> Do you know if this
> applies to the released 0.3.13-alpha version from the 26th of March ?
It does not, that's why I said it isn't in any released version of tor.
The next one should contain it, until then you're for
On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:18 AM, k...@damnfbi.tk wrote:
> Can anyone explain how to get the Unnamed flag for my node changed over to
> Named?
> -kupo
The only way is to wait while the name mapping expires.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.tor
On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 07.04.2013 20:25, Andreas Krey wrote:
>> No, its not 'per second'. It is the amount of allowed traffic that can
>> be saved up while not hitting the BandwidthRate to be used up when the
>> BandwidthRate is exceeded.
>
> Wow. Thanks. All these
On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 15.04.2013 03:45, Nate Homier wrote:
>> If I shut down for a month what will happen to my relay. What if
>> someone chooses the same nick for their relay and so on.
>
> Nicknames are not unique. Someone can pick the same nickname even when
On 24 Mar 2014, at 20:21, tor-admin wrote:
> There a couple of sysctrl parameters that Moritz described here:
> https://www.torservers.net/wiki/setup/server#sysctlconf
That website has at least one glaringly dangerous suggestion, namely
apt-key adv --recv-keys --keyserver keys.gnupg.net 886DD
On 22 Apr 2014, at 20:34, Geri wrote:
> Good evening all!
>
> I just have a question regarding my relay's status on Atlas.
>
> Approx. 5 days ago i have rotated all my keys (deleted /keys dir) after
> Roger's advice for doing so for best security.
>
> Since then i am obersing a strange behav
> On 12. Feb 2023, at 11:46, nusenu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> would it be possible to publish
> the currently enforced value of AuthDirMaxServersPerAddr
> on some tpo website? Maybe consensus-health.tpo?
>
> kind regards,
> nusenu
Hi nusenu,
that's a bit hard to do automatically, as the value is
> On 7. Sep 2019, at 12:20, teor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 20:14, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
>>> Where does the security weakpoint risk come from? Does
>>> apt-transport-tor/onion service repository availability help in your
>>> mind here?
>>
>> As with adding any third-party reposit
Hi all,
> On 16. Mar 2020, at 07:43, teor wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2020, at 22:57, John Ricketts wrote:
>>
>> I have been watching the consensus weight and bandwidth of all of my 50 exit
>> nodes drop consistently over the past few months. I have not made any
>> hardware changes in my data center a
Hi Luiz,
> On 13. Apr 2020, at 15:41, torjoy
> wrote:
> I was browsing the "Consensus health" page and something let me curious...
> What is the importance of the clock skew in the authorities with the
> resolution of microseconds?
> Brasília).png>
>
Hi there,
> On 19. Apr 2020, at 02:25, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:16:34AM +0200, Clément Février wrote:
>> The issue is back. After more than 3 days, the relay appears offline.
>> All flags are gone in nyx. There is a bug.
>
> I believe there is something wrong with
Hi William,
> On 29. Jul 2020, at 00:45, Matt Traudt wrote:
>
> The Guard flag conditions are
> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2640
>
> Given you're Fast and Stable, and have a good advertised bandwidth and
> weight, then I suspect you simply no longer have a Weigh
Hi there,
> On 28. Jul 2020, at 22:33, Fran wrote:
>
> thanks @Torix for the IPv6 suggestion, all auth were reachable via v6, but
> for testing I turned of IPv6 in the tor config - no change.
I can indeed ping both of your IPv4 and IPv6 from gabelmoo right now,
but this is potentially a config
> On 5. Aug 2020, at 17:25, William Kane wrote:
>
> Strange, it's still missing the Guard flag after 8 days of consecutive
> uptime - maybe I'm just being impatient?
>
> Weirdly enough, the relay is also missing on
> https://utternoncesense.com/consensus-health.html.
>
> Every other relay tha
;> to go from 97.95% to 97.96%..
>>
>> ..thats slow.
>>
>> Also, thanks for the correct site, I randomly searched
>> "consensus-health" and just used the first site.. dumb mistake on my
>> end.
>>
>> Thank you and have a great weekend ev
> On 2. Feb 2021, at 22:46, Eddie wrote:
>
> Looking at the consensus health page for my relay
> D195E5CE8AE77BAC91673E6CFB7BD0AF57281646), I see wildly different values for
> bandwidth:
>
> bw=3060
> bw=910
> bw=340
> bw=620
> bw=5130
>
> Why is there such a discrepancy. I'm guessing thi
Hi,
> On 8. Apr 2021, at 14:50, David Goulet wrote:
> On 07 Apr (21:43:50), Toralf Förster wrote:
>> On 4/7/21 9:04 PM, David Goulet wrote:
>>> Over time, we will remove or add more relays at each minor release if the
>>> set
>>> of fallback directories not working reaches a 25% threshold or mo
Hi Tobias,
thanks for running a relay!
> On 20. Apr 2021, at 15:21, Tobias Höller wrote:
>
> I have only recently started operating relays
> (Family:008196DC449482C73CFA9712445223917F760921) and have some trouble with
> reliably getting the "Fast" and "HSDir" flags for my relays. Right now th
Hi Wang,
> On 29. Oct 2021, at 18:10, Mighty Wang wrote:
>
> I have one pretty large relay, MIGHTYWANG which is an IP4/6 guard, dedicated
> hardware running on a 1Gb line uncontended. It is usually one of the top 5
> relays by consensus weight but on the morning of 14th October it lost Guard
86 matches
Mail list logo
