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

[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 <sjcjonker at sjc.nl> wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Roger Dingledine:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +0000, 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 Would the following documents still be valid (They themselves state they might be outdated)?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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20180304/e3f0112d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1552 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20180304/e3f0112d/attachment.sig>