[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #6341 [Tor Relay]: connection_or_flush_from_first_active_circuit() does wrong thing when ewma_enabled
#6341: connection_or_flush_from_first_active_circuit() does wrong thing when
ewma_enabled
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: arma | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.3.x-final
Component: Tor Relay | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by robgjansen):
Replying to [comment:58 arma]:
> The legend in 'network data read/written over time' is particularly
poorly placed: what happens to the blue line underneath it? :)
There's not particularly much room for the legend in the data-over-time
plots, and its not worth the effort to adjust the legend for every
simulation run I do. I guess I could place the legend in the upper left
for the "Read" graph and in the lower right for the "Write" graph...
>
> I guess my main question from considering these graphs is: what is the
variance on these results? If you run with the same network but a
different random seed, do you get the same general results or are they
different by a bit? It looks like for the topic at hand, 'different by a
bit' could easily swing things from 'helps to hurts' or vice versa.
Sounds like a good discussion for #5398.
> Does that mean we should close #6341 (now that we fixed the major Shadow
bug) and move on to simulating something that we think ought to make a
huge difference?
Sounds like a good plan.
Regarding bootstrapping:
[https://github.com/shadow/shadow/commit/3652ead7192b1764dac1448d83947a787b203db0
this Shadow patch] has improved things further. Turns out our attempt to
auto-tune TCP was creating tiny [virtual-]kernel buffers when the end-to-
end bandwidth-delay product was tiny. After a quick test, the remaining
small percentage of relays now finish bootstrapping at the same time as
the others.
I thought and still wonder if our original auto-tuning was correct. I'm
afraid its not clear to me what the 'correct' auto-tuning functionality
is, and I'd rather not browse the kernel source to find out...
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6341#comment:60>
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