[tor] Re: Current state of affairs regarding Torservers.net

  • From: Julian Wissmann <julianwissmann@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: torservers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:48:26 +0100

Hi,

> 
>>> At what point can torservers be confident it can support $800/month?
>> 
>> It's a very tough decision to make. Our current funds ($2400) mean we
>> would survive 3 months. Three months of beating the drum, incorporation,
>> proper announcement and press release, finally translating the website,
>> plus some nice ticking clocks and bars on the website and Kickstarter
>> fundraising.
> I don't think that putting that kind of pressure on people is a good
> idea; its essentially saying "If you don't donate enough the node will
> go down."
> It leaves a bad aftertaste like from all the pressure-building in
> marketing and ads. Besides, is it possible to gather that much traffic
> in that timeframe?

I wholly agree with you, especially since it will probably be hard to get the 
node up to perform to expectations within a tight timeframe.
We should rather go along as steadily and reliably as we can with funding since 
funding a big node for a couple of months only is not going to help anyone I'd 
say.
I'm rather afraid that we might piss off possible sponsors - and also hosters 
with a stunt like that, since trying to be a respectable organization to me 
includes reliability and foresight in what we do, which something like that... 
well you got my pint I guess.
> 
> I'm for a more adaptable way of running exit nodes.
> Meaning that smaller nodes (100 mbit) should be added as monthly
> donations allow for. So when more come in, more nodes are added.
> It makes torservers.net more reliable and sustainable. Donators also
> could be sure to support the tor network in the longer term.

I don't totally agree with you on that. Considering the cost of a bunch of 
100mbit nodes compared to a gbit node the latter looks more economic to me. 
Also a gbit node might be able to provide valuable performance analysis data to 
the tor project, because there seem to be some rather large bottlenecks in the 
gbit region. 

> 
> 
>> State of affairs:
>> 
>> 100tb doesn't respond
>> 2host doesn't respond
>> evoboxes isn't quite sure yet; cannot SWIP yet
>> Most don't like us
>> Other are too expensive: Professional offers start at ~500 Euro per 200
>> Mbps at the cheapest (with 100 of that already donated)
>> 
>> FDC has a new datacenter in CZ, $300 for "unmetered Gbit"; not sure they
>> would accept us, waiting on a reply. Mike Perry left and told me to
>> better stay away, but he was at a US datacenter.
>> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1017226

Comparing the legal situations in both countries I think we could give that a 
try actually.

>> 
>> And we don't even know if we can push the server to Gbit anyway. There
>> seem to be some bottlenecks still hidden inside the code. Amunet is at
>> not more than 800 Mbps most of the time.

800mbit is actually quite good although more is definitely nice. But in that 
range it gets difficult to debug ie it might be the actual network equipment or 
a bottleneck.
>> 
>> We can:
>> 
>> * go with Swiftway in a strategic moment and hope for the best (in terms
>> of bandwidth and publicity)
>> * run the first Icelandic exit for 12€/Mbps
> 12 per Mbps? So 1200 Euro/month for a 100 mbit node?
> Seems mighty expensive to say the least..
> 
> 
>> * go with a reliable 200 mbps in Germany for ~500 Euro/mnth
>> * try FDC
>> * look/wait for better offers
> I think www.leaseweb.com should be considered.
> They offer 100 mbit/s for 106 euro/month (including VAT), it seems
> unmetered, unshared and guaranteed. So about 30 TB would be possible.
> They state that on different places on their website and clearly
> confirmed the points to me in an mail exchange (I asked very
> clear questions). So it seems that it wouldn't be a problem for them
> that if it is used to a full extent. Its also hard to find
> anything negative about them on the web. The German Privacy Foundation
> runs a (small) exit node there.
> 
> I also asked about Tor and it's OK with their TOS. They wrote:
> "To answer your question, yes this is legal, so you can host this, no
> problem."
> I just wrote them asking about forwarding abuse complaints and custom
> whois. Will let you know.
> 
> And for 106 Euro each several could be rented.
> 
> And maybe later, if they really prove to be Tor friendly, it could be
> thought about making payments in advance, since they offer substantial
> discounts that way (5%/10%/20%/30% for 3/6/12/24 months).

Considering that we'd pay 300€ for gbit in cz I think we should rather go with 
that. Better bang/buck ratio :-) If they burn us.... well we'd still have this 
option.
The basic problem here as I see it is to actually find providers that have the 
guts to let us host tor exits over longer time periods and without trying we 
won't find more of those hosters. 
> 
> 
>> I think we should make a decision before, or, at the latest, at the
>> foundation meeting. I haven't heard back from the tax authorities yet, I
>> expect it to take no longer than one more week. I'm leaving Dresden for
>> two weeks on 22nd, so Feb 19th would be the last possible ad hoc
>> founding date or we'll have to postpone until mid March.
Same applies for me, too actually.
>> 
>> If you want to discuss any of this, join us at irc.oftc.net #torservers,
>> or contact me personally on XMPP moritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Julian

Other related posts: