[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-dev] Brief state of sbws thoughts

Matt Traudt:
> Teor, Juga
> 
> There's a lot of things fighting for my attention right now, so you
> might have noticed I've slowed way down on attending to sbws
> tickets/PRs/etc. I think time will free up in the next few days.
> 
> I think sbws is in a very good place code-wise right now. I don't think
> much more **has** to be done to the code. Even though I enjoy adding
> things like the state file (GHPR#236 [2]), I don't think that was a good
> use of my time.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of check boxes Juga has made regarding
> making a Debian package[0]. Those should get checked. These are important.
> 
> However, I think the absolute most important thing for us to be spending
> our time on right now is deciding what "good" results are and verifying
> sbws produces "good" results.
> 
> To accomplish this, I think one of the two suggestions I made in a
> comment on GH#182 [1] (quoted here) is what we should be doing.
> 
> 1. Run torflow and sbws side-by-side (but not at the same time) to
> remove more variables. This has the added benefit of us having access to
> the raw scanner results from torflow before it does whatever magic
> scaling it does. OR

In that ticket you also mentioned that someone that already runs torflow
should also run sbws.
I said i can run both, and still the case if needed.

> 2. Ask for access to raw scanner results from someone running torflow.
> 
> I fear sbws is doomed to die the death of the new bandwidth scanners
> before it if we don't start seriously verifying sbws is "good" or if I
> personally slowly stop working/coordinating work on it.

I don't think that's the case. I've not forget it... and i'm sure teor
neither.
Some of the last work we have done is regarding getting the bandwidth
files archived, what will also help to determine whether sbws results
are "good".

If 1. would be run by someone else, getting [0] done is indeed important
and i'm currently working on it.

And maybe we aren't able to determine how "good" sbws results are until
it actually starts being run by dirauths, for which [0] is still important.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
juga.

> Thanks
> 
> Matt
> 
> [0]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/26848
> [1]:
> https://github.com/pastly/simple-bw-scanner/issues/182#issuecomment-404250053
> [2]: https://github.com/pastly/simple-bw-scanner/pull/236
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev