> Thanks for writing to us. Thanks for the answers.
> This is a question that gets asked a lot: > "Many people set up new fast relays and then wonder why their bandwidth > is not fully loaded instantly…" > https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay Maybe this is correct in many cases. But definitely not in all of them. For example, this line: "once the bwauths have measured you and the directory authorities lift the 20KB cap, you'll attract more and more traffic" Events can go other way: bwauths will assign lower weight, and relay will be getting less and less traffic. > It can take a week or two for the bandwidth authorities to measure a > relay. Relay, which hit the problem, can be in underpowered state for months. > I'm not sure if this is a problem. And I'm not sure how many relays it > impacts. Hundreds, I guess. Here is some examples: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/9FC2673BB2704C2AAB851F8334938565DF1D0819 Now used bandwidth: 1 KiB/s Advertised Bandwidth: 131.38 KiB/s Top used bandwidth: 250 KiB/s Bandwidth rate: 4000 KiB/s https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/B918EB3FA4D03A4F9F632AA17F217A6C04044EF7 Now used bandwidth: 1 KiB/s Advertised Bandwidth: 82.65 KiB/s Top used bandwidth: 245 KiB/s Bandwidth rate: 800 KiB/s https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/DF1C6C645C5854780778A3E81D12F2A8FF65744B Now used bandwidth: 1 KiB/s Advertised Bandwidth: 62.29 KiB/s Top used bandwidth: 7 KiB/s Bandwidth rate: 3000 KiB/s https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E2AF5879F39FF40DF8994E9B8FAEAB2518AEEBA4 Now used bandwidth: 1 KiB/s Advertised Bandwidth: 70.94 KiB/s Top used bandwidth: 916 KiB/s Bandwidth rate: 1000 KiB/s As you can see, most of them can handle a lot more traffic: 50x-4000x. Also don't see why they can have high latency. Good relays, on my opinion. > But we know there is a bias in Tor's measurements towards North America > and Europe, because that's where most of the measurements are made from: No, this have no impact in this case. I have launched my own instance of BwAuthority and I see, that measured "filt_bw" values are pretty close to "Advertised Bandwidth": node_id=$9FC2673BB2704C2AAB851F8334938565DF1D0819 nick=qq strm_bw=52732 filt_bw=77967 circ_fail_rate=0.0 desc_bw=134537 ns_bw=13000 node_id=$9FC2673BB2704C2AAB851F8334938565DF1D0819 nick=qq strm_bw=61278 filt_bw=70430 circ_fail_rate=0.0 desc_bw=85495 ns_bw=13000 node_id=$B918EB3FA4D03A4F9F632AA17F217A6C04044EF7 nick=TranTor strm_bw=40485 filt_bw=47052 circ_fail_rate=0.0 desc_bw=84635 ns_bw=12000 The problem is on the next step, I think. >> The result has revealed some anomalies: >> >> https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2017/06/fed1cf8b57fc027223c8eaf3deb0d28a.png >> First, and most important, - a lot of relays have bandwidth estimate >> in range 0-50: 1082 of them. > I don't know what each axis is on this graph. x is KiB/s, y is count (yellow bars are for "Advertised Bandwidth", blue - for "Consensus Weight", grey mean both values) > 20 is the default, 50 is the maximum for a relay's self-test. > If a relay isn't measured, or measures very low, it usually gets a > figure in this range. I have excluded non-measured relays from this histogram. >> Second - there are incorrect estimates >> for popular bandwidths of 5, 10 and 20 MBits. > I don't understand what you mean here. The advertised bandwidth is in > kilobytes per second, and the consensus weight is dimensionless (but > scaled from kilobytes per second). > Can you point out the lines you mean? Look at the yellow spike at x = ~1200. Low blue bars at the same point means that "Consensus Weight" model did not take into account that there are many 1200 KiB/s nodes on the network, which will result in theirs underload. -- Vort _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
