Hi,
between Saturday evening and Tuesday afternoon (UTC+1) my relay's bandwidth dropped to about 2/3 of its normal value. Did some changes in directory's weighting algorithm occur during this time period?
regards Olaf
Hi Olaf,
You wrote once that Blutmagie will likely be shut down in Q1 2011. Any update on this?
On 02.03.2011 12:23, Olaf Selke wrote:
Hi,
between Saturday evening and Tuesday afternoon (UTC+1) my relay's bandwidth dropped to about 2/3 of its normal value. Did some changes in directory's weighting algorithm occur during this time period?
regards Olaf
On 02.03.2011 13:23, Moritz Bartl wrote:
You wrote once that Blutmagie will likely be shut down in Q1 2011. Any update on this?
the contract of labor with my employer ends 07/31, so I expect blutmagie available at least until summer 2011. Presently I can't tell if the special housing agreement will be offered when I'm no longer with Telefónica Germany.
regards Olaf
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 12:23:05PM +0100, Olaf Selke wrote:
between Saturday evening and Tuesday afternoon (UTC+1) my relay's bandwidth dropped to about 2/3 of its normal value. Did some changes in directory's weighting algorithm occur during this time period?
We lost 2 of our 4 bandwidth scanners between Saturday at 18:00 UTC and Tuesday at 14:00 UTC. We need at least 3 scanner results for clients to use the measured bandwidth values instead of the self-reported ones.
Looks like we should try harder to keep all 4 bandwidth scanners working!
Thanks for reporting!
Best, Karsten
On 2 March 2011 07:37, Karsten Loesing karsten.loesing@gmx.net wrote:
We lost 2 of our 4 bandwidth scanners between Saturday at 18:00 UTC and Tuesday at 14:00 UTC. We need at least 3 scanner results for clients to use the measured bandwidth values instead of the self-reported ones.
Have you considered adding more bandwidth scanners? Is the quorum of 3/4 designed to prevent a pair of scanners from being evil, or to ensure that representative sample is used?
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 04:57:58PM -0500, Flamsmark wrote:
On 2 March 2011 07:37, Karsten Loesing karsten.loesing@gmx.net wrote:
We lost 2 of our 4 bandwidth scanners between Saturday at 18:00 UTC and Tuesday at 14:00 UTC. We need at least 3 scanner results for clients to use the measured bandwidth values instead of the self-reported ones.
Have you considered adding more bandwidth scanners? Is the quorum of 3/4 designed to prevent a pair of scanners from being evil, or to ensure that representative sample is used?
Mike would be a better person to answer this.
My guess is that we should add more bandwidth scanners. The main problem is that the bandwidth scanners are quite resource-intensive in terms of bandwidth (surprise!), RAM, and personal care by the operator. Also, the bandwidth scanner results are tied to a directory authority vote, so the scanner should be run by the directory authority operators themselves or by a person trusted by them.
The requirement of having at least 3 bandwidth scanners running has to do with preventing a single bandwidth scanner from influencing the median. Even if there were 5 or 6 scanners, we'd require at least 3 scanner results before falling back to the relays' self-reported bandwidth.
Best, Karsten
Thus spake Karsten Loesing (karsten.loesing@gmx.net):
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 04:57:58PM -0500, Flamsmark wrote:
Have you considered adding more bandwidth scanners? Is the quorum of 3/4 designed to prevent a pair of scanners from being evil, or to ensure that representative sample is used?
My guess is that we should add more bandwidth scanners. The main problem is that the bandwidth scanners are quite resource-intensive in terms of bandwidth (surprise!), RAM, and personal care by the operator. Also, the bandwidth scanner results are tied to a directory authority vote, so the scanner should be run by the directory authority operators themselves or by a person trusted by them.
The requirement of having at least 3 bandwidth scanners running has to do with preventing a single bandwidth scanner from influencing the median. Even if there were 5 or 6 scanners, we'd require at least 3 scanner results before falling back to the relays' self-reported bandwidth.
Yes. We definitely want 5 or 6, but there will be a substantial upgrade to the bw scanner code before we want to do this, I think.
There's a bunch of things that need to improve, most importantly their stability and memory usage, but also their compatibility with the latest sqlalchemy version, rather than some ancient one (or perhaps in addition).
We can technically add them before these code updates, but it should be a bit smoother to do it afterwords.
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
Flamsmark -
Karsten Loesing -
Mike Perry -
Moritz Bartl -
Olaf Selke