Re: [tor-bugs] #28355 [Core Tor/DocTor]: Do not notify about bwauths out of sync

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#28355: Do not notify about bwauths out of sync
-----------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  juga             |          Owner:  juga
     Type:  task             |         Status:  needs_information
 Priority:  Medium           |      Milestone:
Component:  Core Tor/DocTor  |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal           |     Resolution:
 Keywords:                   |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                   |         Points:
 Reviewer:                   |        Sponsor:
-----------------------------+-----------------------------------

Comment (by juga):

 Replying to [comment:5 teor]:
 > Replying to [comment:4 juga]:
 > > Replying to [comment:2 teor]:
 > > > I don't understand what the issue is here. You linked to a very
 large comment in a ticket that is closed as fixed.
 > >
 > > I meant the comment6, specifically:
 > > << If any of these things are true, do not put the relay in the
 bandwidth file:
 > >
 > >     there are less than 2 sbws measured bandwidths
 > >     all the sbws measured bandwidths are within 24 hours of each other
 > >     there are less than 2 descriptor observed bandwidths
 > >     all the descriptor observed bandwidths are within 24 hours of each
 other
 > > >>
 >
 > Ok, so sbws filters out more relays than torflow?

 yes
 >
 > > > If #27338 is fixed in sbws master, then we should ask the dirauths
 to upgrade.
 > > >
 > > > If #27338 is not fixed in sbws master, and the difference in
 reported relays is significant, then we should fix it before sbws 1.0.
 > >
 > > It is fixed in master and in 1.0, which has been already released.
 > >
 > > > If the difference in reported relays is not significant, then we
 should lower the threshold for this alarm.
 > >
 > > Right now the threshold is 0.8
 (https://gitweb.torproject.org/doctor.git/tree/consensus_health_checker.py#n807).
 > >
 > > If we lower that to 0.7, there won't be alarm. Sounds this solution
 reasonable?
 >
 > Why can't we modify sbws so it does what torflow does?

 i think you suggested to add those restrictions because torflow obtains
 the relays descriptors every hour while sbws only obtains a relay
 descriptor in the moment it does the measurement for that relay.

 IIRC the restrictions can be disabled by cli options. I can run sbws
 without those. Should i?

 > Is sbws more correct?

 correct in which sense?.

 You have proposed different restrictions for sbws 1.1 [0] which i still
 don't know how they would affect the number of results.

 > Is torflow including useless relays?

 useless in which sense?.

 i think torflow is just including more relays because it doesn't check the
 restrictions we added.

 [0] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?milestone=sbws+1.1

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28355#comment:6>
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