[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #28563 [Core Tor/sbws]: Work out how sbws can report excluded relays in the bandwidth file
#28563: Work out how sbws can report excluded relays in the bandwidth file
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: teor | Owner: juga
Type: defect | Status:
| needs_review
Priority: Medium | Milestone: sbws:
| 1.1.0
Component: Core Tor/sbws | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tor-bwauth, sbws-1.0-must- | Actual Points:
moved-20181128, sbws-11x-final- |
removed-20190312, sbws-110-proposed, changes- |
version-minor |
Parent ID: #28547 | Points:
Reviewer: nickm | Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by teor):
Replying to [comment:15 juga]:
> Replying to [comment:14 teor]:
>
> > Tor ignores lines without a "bw=" key. But Tor 0.3.5 and later log an
"Incomplete bandwidth file" warning for every incomplete line, every time
they parse the file. That's not ok: we can not fill up authority operators
logs with warnings.
>
> Sorry, i forgot about the warning.
I only found out about the warning when I tested your design on an
authority,
> > Instead, you could use "bw=0 unmeasured=1 vote=0" and patch tor so
that it ignores relay lines with "vote=0". Can you open another ticket for
this Tor change?
>
> We have always say to do not give "bw=0" but "bw=1" because 0 can cause
problems in Tor.
> Shouldn't "bw=0" be "bw=1"?.
Yes, I think 1 is better,
> > Tor versions without the patch will give more 0 votes to unmeasured
relays, so they will get lower bandwidth values in the consensus. That's
ok.
> >
> > We might want to vote 0 for unmeasured relays in a future sbws or tor
version.
>
> Hmm you mean to vote that the relay has 0 bandwidth?, right? (not to
don't vote for the unmeasured relay).
Vote 0 bandwidth for the relay. Or vote 1 bandwidth for the relay.
> > That's why I added the "unmeasured=1" key. But it's not a change I
want to make now, because you only have 10 paid days left. Can you open
another ticket for this sbws change?
What is the ticket number of the new ticket for the sbws change to vote on
unmeasured relays?
> Hmm, if i add "unmeasured=1" and make a Tor patch that ignores lines
with "unmeasured=1", then we do not need to add "vote=0" and in a future
Tor version we can still change Tor to vote on those lines, right?.
We could p change Tor. But that takes 6-12 months from change to release
to authority deployment.
So I want to be able to change sbws.
To make changing sbws easy, I want to separate reasons and actions.
"unmeasured=1" is the reason, "vote=0" is the suggested action.
In future, sbws might have more reasons, or sbws might suggest different
actions.
Replying to [comment:16 juga]:
> Replying to [comment:14 teor]:
>
> > Instead, you could use "bw=0 unmeasured=1 vote=0" and patch tor so
that it ignores relay lines with "vote=0". Can you open another ticket for
this Tor change?
What is the ticket number of the new ticket for the Tor patch to ignore
vote=0?
> Regarding the word "unmeasured", i'm not sure whether it should be named
"excluded" or something similar, since maybe the relay was measured but
excluded for some other reason.
> I guess this word is not very important though.
No, I mean "unmeasured", because that's the word we use in the consensus,
when a relay doesn't have enough votes with measured bandwidths.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28563#comment:22>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs