On 06/11/2014 08:38 PM, grarpamp wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote: >> I've looked at four CL sites: > > Here the distribution of every exit with a matching > policy to one site, with its respective page time and > 'getinfo ns/id/fp' weight. Exits sorted by page time. > > http://bayimg.com/nAodGAaFL
Cool. What URLs have you been looking at -- root URLs or particular ads, posts, etc? > The first 170+ with 0 time tor refused as 'unrecognized > relays' even though policy permitted them. They might > have been sleeping. > > The division of half the relays is interesting. > If there's a better source for the probability each > exit will be picked by a client I'd like to know? You're testing all known exits, right? And they're ranked in the plot by loading time, right? But in that case, I don't understand the zero weights in the center. I'm guessing that Tor clients don't pick at least some of the non-responding ones. I'd also like a cite to the selection algorithm. Also, how are you measuring load times? Are you getting full pages with images etc, or just the HTML? > As is the sizable number of weight dropouts > around the start of blocking near 120 sec. I'd appreciate more explanation of this observation. >> In the course of each test set, I saw connections through the initial >> exit to 100-130 other CL sites. I also saw numerous connections to other >> CL sites through many other exits. >> >> I don't know how to interpret that. Any ideas? > > CL DNS load balancing moving IP's, your html agent fetching > embedded urls. What I'm wondering is whether Craigslist's distributed design and load balancing methods are slowing down access via Tor, but not intentionally. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
