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 they 
> might be outdated)?
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthority
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthorityMeasurements
> 
> Also what bandwidth should an bwauth have available itself?
> 
> I can see if I can support by running one, although it will be EU based.
> You need a directory authority to vote on your bandwidth authority's output.
> 
> Do you know what is the best way to get these vote(s), i.e. who to approach; 
> as these kind of things are still a mystery with the Tor project for me. From 
> a personal believe happy to assist, have reasonable spare CPU/Mem and 
> Bandwidth available. So that should't be an huge issue. I know a thing or two 
> about running systems so to say..
> 

It's a big ask.

You need a directory authority operator to trust you enough to take
arbitrary, unvalidated output from a process you run, and feed it to
their directory authority.

Try to meet some directory authority operators, if you don't know any.
Get involved in running relays and other Tor volunteer work.

But it might not happen.

> Bandwidth authorities measure relay capacity. Then they send their results to 
> a
> directory authority, and the directory authority puts the results in its 
> vote. The
> directory authority votes change the consensus weights of relays.
> 
> If your bandwidth authority isn't used for voting or testing, it's just 
> wasting
> bandwidth.
> 
> If you want to test and contribute code to a new bandwidth authority
> implementation, I'd recommend:
> 
> https://github.com/TheTorProject/bwscanner
> 
> Thanks I found the TorFlow repo; that feels a bit hacked, but if either do 
> the job and the above Q can be answered then happy to (try and) set it up.
> 

We need a bandwidth authority implementation that works better
than TorFlow. One thing you can do to help is run bwscanner, and
feed its output to a test directory authority.

You might find chutney useful for setting up a test network:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/chutney.git

> But you'll need to change the default bandwidth server config, due to the
> tor project DDoS.
> 
> I assume that can be shared in a more private setting then.
> 

You can set up your own bandwidth server:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torflow.git/tree/NetworkScanners/BwAuthority/README.BwAuthorities#n157

T___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 they 
>> might be outdated)?
>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthority
>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthorityMeasurements
>>
>> Also what bandwidth should an bwauth have available itself?
>>
>> I can see if I can support by running one, although it will be EU based.
>>
>
> You need a directory authority to vote on your bandwidth authority's output.

Do you know what is the best way to get these vote(s), i.e. who to approach; as 
these kind of things are still a mystery with the Tor project for me. From a 
personal believe happy to assist, have reasonable spare CPU/Mem and Bandwidth 
available. So that should't be an huge issue. I know a thing or two about 
running systems so to say..

> Bandwidth authorities measure relay capacity. Then they send their results to 
> a
> directory authority, and the directory authority puts the results in its 
> vote. The
> directory authority votes change the consensus weights of relays.
>
> If your bandwidth authority isn't used for voting or testing, it's just 
> wasting
> bandwidth.
>
> If you want to test and contribute code to a new bandwidth authority
> implementation, I'd recommend:
>
> https://github.com/TheTorProject/bwscanner

Thanks I found the TorFlow repo; that feels a bit hacked, but if either do the 
job and the above Q can be answered then happy to (try and) set it up.

> But you'll need to change the default bandwidth server config, due to the
> tor project DDoS.

I assume that can be shared in a more private setting then.

Stijn

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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 website.
> 
> Faravahar and moria1 were still using the default bwauth backend, but
> we've moved to a different one and things are looking fine again.
> 
> Never a dull moment,
> --Roger

Thanks for all of your hard work; Tor has good back office. I've been
off-line for a while myself because I've been trying to upgrade
equipment (& Tor itself -Error 2...?!?), and I'd rather not run relays
unless I'm running them according to Hoyle, i.e. up-to-date and secure.



0xDD79757F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 they 
> might be outdated)?
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthority
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthorityMeasurements
> 
> Also what bandwidth should an bwauth have available itself?
> 
> I can see if I can support by running one, although it will be EU based.
> 

You need a directory authority to vote on your bandwidth authority's output.

Bandwidth authorities measure relay capacity. Then they send their results to a
directory authority, and the directory authority puts the results in its vote. 
The
directory authority votes change the consensus weights of relays.

If your bandwidth authority isn't used for voting or testing, it's just wasting
bandwidth.

If you want to test and contribute code to a new bandwidth authority
implementation, I'd recommend:

https://github.com/TheTorProject/bwscanner

But you'll need to change the default bandwidth server config, due to the
tor project DDoS.

T___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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 are now back and working. Thanks for your patience
everyone.

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 website.

Faravahar and moria1 were still using the default bwauth backend, but
we've moved to a different one and things are looking fine again.

Never a dull moment,
--Roger

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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 you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw.
>>>
>>> This affects currently the 857 fastest relays.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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 they might 
be outdated)?
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthority
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/BandwidthAuthorityMeasurements

Also what bandwidth should an bwauth have available itself?

I can see if I can support by running one, although it will be EU based.

Stijn

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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. 
>>
>> This affects currently the 857 fastest relays.
> 
> 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.

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.


Cheers,
~Vasilis
-- 
Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162
Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get=0x5FBF70B1D1260162



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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 have a bw=5k relay which almost 
doubled the amount of traffic, increasing steadily from 14.30 UTC until 19.00 
UTC [a.k.a. now]. I assume this is because 5k is a much higher percentage of 
the total bw now compared to when fast nodes was not capped at 10k and at the 
same time, 5k didn't "give" me enough traffic to meet RelayBandwidthRate. 

~ 
Stian 

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


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 the 857 fastest relays.

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.

The extrafast relays will get a bit of a respite for now, and I guess
the slower relays will have some excitement until we can get things back
to normal.

Thanks,
--Roger

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays