This sounds like A really cool Project :))) I have worked out a hs loadbalancer But only in My mind i havent actually coded it, i Guess i would setup server A as frontend nginx and THE rest as upstream backends to nginx A
Alec Muffett <alec.muff...@gmail.com> skrev: (19 december 2016 11:30:16 CET) >I would post this to the tor-onions list, but it might be more >generally >interesting to folk, so I'm posting here and will shift it if it gets >too >technical. > > >I'm working on load-balanced, high-availability Tor deployment >architectures, and on that basis I am running 72 tor daemons on a >cluster >of 6 quad-core Debian boxes. > >I am then - using Donncha's "OnionBalance" to: > >* scrape the descriptors of those 72 daemons > >* selects random(ish) 60 of the introduction points from those daemons, >and > >* rebundle those 60 introduction points into 6 distinct descriptors of >10 >introduction points apiece, then > >* signing those distinct descriptors with a "service" onion address and >emplacing them onto the HSDir ring. > > >This means that, at any one time, the daemon will be able to have 60x >the >CPU and network-bus bandwidth, above/beyond what is available to a >typical >single-daemon instance. > >Why "72"? Because it's a number >60 and I'm seeking to stress-test >things a >little. > >Specifically: one eventual goal of this project is to adjust the >timings a >little, so that the HSDir cache acts a little like "Round-Robin DNS >Load >Balancing" - people accessing the "service" onion address at lunchtime >will >receive/cache different descriptors from those who access it some hours >later, and the descriptors persist, so thereby the whole 72 daemons get >used/averaged-out over an entire day. > >In my attempts to go fast-and-wide, however, I appear to have run into >a >hardcoded limit: > >Dec 19 09:24:43.365 [warn] HiddenServiceNumIntroductionPoints should be >between 3 and 10, not 1 > >There's little point in publishing >2, and perhaps* not >1 introduction >point for each of the 72 daemons; also it makes scraping and reassembly >slower/more expensive. > >So I am writing to ask whether it is possible (and whether it is wise?) >to >have a mode that will bypass this (otherwise very sensible) control? > > -alec > > > >* it would be rude to an IP to have only a single-IP-per-daemon that >was >invariant over a long period, but I believe that IPs migrate over time >anyway... ? > >-- >http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm >-- >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 -- Sincerly flipchan - LayerProx dev -- 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
