I apologize for what is probably bad form in replying to an older thread that has sort of fallen off, but I've been trying to figure out why I just can't seem to get any consensus weight on our middle relay (ByTORAndTheSnowDog).

We moved in May to another city and have a different internet provider now. We had gigabit symmetrical internet at the last place and I *get* that a drop in bandwidth and consensus should be expected, but our internet bandwidth here is not that bad. 300mbit down/20mbit up.

Consensus weight is mostly a function of your upstream bandwidth, right? Do the bandwidth auth testers ever "get it wrong"? I'm not sure where to look to see what kind of bandwidth is being measured from us. It seems unlikely however that we are only able to push out the paltry rates I see in our atlas entries.

These are the rate limiting-related settings I'm running in torrc:

RelayBandwidthRate 2300 KB
RelayBandwidthBurst 2500 KB

BandwidthRate 2300 KB
BandwidthBurst 2500 KB

Not using any MaxAdvertisedBandwidth settings anymore -- I commented them out a week or so ago at last restart after reading that you shouldn't set these if you are looking to get more traffic.

The most likely explanation is, we just don't have the upstream bandwidth we think we do. But I consistently get speedtest.net upstream tests above 20 megabits/sec to different speedtest sites around eastern US "hubs" (atlanta, virginia, ie, places that have bandwidth). So I don't understand.

Thanks



On 09/13/2016 09:38 PM, teor wrote:
On 14 Sep 2016, at 11:34, jensm1 <jen...@bbjh.de> wrote:

Addendum: Did a bit of research (or rather checked some random relays on Atlas).

It seems like it's not only my relay that experienced a significant drop at the 
same time. I can't find anything obvious these relays have in common. new/old, 
large/small, guard/exit/middle, different countries and ASes.
So it might be BWAuth related after all.
I don't think you need to worry about this in the short term - it is entirely 
normal for a relay's consensus weight to fluctuate.

But here's my analysis, based on recent authority votes.
8 authorities vote on your relay
8 have the relay's observed bandwidth as 1112 (kilobytes per second)
4 measure your bandwidth, as:
377
394
1680
2820
https://collector.torproject.org/recent/relay-descriptors/votes/

The consensus has your weight as the low-median of these values: 394.
https://collector.torproject.org/recent/relay-descriptors/consensuses/2016-09-14-00-00-00-consensus

When your relay is measured again in another week, it might be that a figure 
closer to ~1500 becomes the low-median. If so, your observed bandwidth might 
end up being used as your consensus weight.

The long-term fix for bandwidth measurement this is for the Tor network to 
geographically distribute more bandwidth authorities, or use a distributed 
bandwidth measurement system (this is an unsolved problem for untrusted 
distributed networks).

It is possible that connections between your relay and other relays are blocked 
or slowed by some kind of firewall. This seems unlikely, because you're on the 
default ports. Do you block any outgoing ports from your tor instance? Has your 
provider imposed a bandwidth cap?

Tim

Am 14.09.2016 um 02:49 schrieb jensm1:
That's exactly what baffles me. I didn't make any changes to the relay 
configuration since updating to 0.2.8.7. I've always had some fluctuations in 
the Advertised Bandwidth as reported by Atlas, but I assume these are from the 
BWAuth measurements?

The only thing on my end, that I could imagine, is that the VPS provider 
changed something in his configuration. But since I don't see any interruption 
of the servers uptime (neither in Tor, nor in Debian, nor in the VPS control 
panel), I assume this couldn't be anything drastic like moving the VM to a 
different host machine.



Am 14.09.2016 um 02:10 schrieb teor:
On 13 Sep 2016, at 23:30, jensm1 <jen...@bbjh.de>
  wrote:

I last restarted the relay five days ago (update to 0.2.8.7). Can a restart 
really cause the consensus weight to drop several days later? If it drops 
within a few hours, I'd get that, but what would delay that response that much?
(Not complaining, just genuinely curious.)

I'm really not sure - any flag changes should have an impact within an hour.
Several days later is more likely to be bandwidth authority measurement - is 
your relay up and capable of transmitting as much traffic as it was before it 
was restarted?
Are its ports open to all other relays?
Can it open connections to other relays, regardless of their ports?
Did you make any other config changes at the same time?

Tim


Am 13.09.2016 um 10:37 schrieb teor:

On 13 Sep 2016, at 18:05, jensm1 <jen...@bbjh.de>

  wrote:

Hi,

I just realised that my relay 'itwasntme' lost most of its consensus
weight yesterday morning. The relay is only three weeks old, but it was
finally picking up some traffic, which now is gone again.
What could be the cause for this? Is there a problem with my relay or
configuration?


It looks like you just recently gained some consensus weight, then temporarily 
lost it after you restarted your relay.
We're working on improving the stability algorithm so these temporary downtimes 
don't affect relays as much.
But in any case, wait a week or two, and it will be back.
(If not, please let us know.)

Tim



Thanks for your help!




https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/F46C312E279185364F46EA06C58F7925280911E2




_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list


tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org









_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list


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

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.

www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org









_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list

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


_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org








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


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

Reply via email to