Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-04 Thread teor
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:35, Stijn Jonker wrote: > > Perhaps it makes sense to do a call and add some more bandwidth authority > relays > during the upcoming meeting in Rome similar to the Montreal meeting. > Would the following documents still be valid (They themselves state

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-04 Thread Stijn Jonker
Hi Teor & Others, Thanks for your response, On 2 Mar 2018, at 23:26, teor wrote: > > On 3 Mar 2018, at 02:15, Stijn Jonker wrote: >> >> On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Roger Dingledine: >> >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote: >>

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-03 Thread Kenneth Freeman
On 03/02/2018 01:17 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Turns out the issue was that the default bwauth backend (the server that > serves the bandwidth files) went offline during our efforts to shuffle > things around so www.torproject.org could survive this week's 15-20gbps > ddos attack on our

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-02 Thread teor
> On 3 Mar 2018, at 02:15, Stijn Jonker wrote: > > On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote: > > Hi, > > Roger Dingledine: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote: > > if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this > might be due to

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-02 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 02:02:19PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Yep! We had 4 running, but 2 of them had problems, and we need 3 > for the authorities to want to use the values from them. > > moria1 is one that had problems, so I'm hoping to have that resolved > shortly. And all four of them

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-02 Thread Stijn Jonker
On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote: > Hi, > > Roger Dingledine: >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote: > >>> if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this >>> might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. >>> >>> If

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-03-02 Thread Vasilis
Hi, Roger Dingledine: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote: >> if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this >> might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. >> >> If you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw. >> >>

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-02-27 Thread Stian Fauskanger
if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. If you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw. This affects currently the 857 fastest relays. It also affects "low-consensus" relays. I

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

2018-02-27 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote: > Hi, > > if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this > might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. > > If you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw. > > This affects currently