Re: [tor-dev] stale entries in bwscan.20151029-1145

[Tom Ritter <tom@xxxxxxxxx>]

[+tor-dev]

So... weird. I dug into Onyx primarily. No, in scanner.1/scan-data I
cannot find any evidence of Onyx being present.  I'm not super
familiar with the files torflow produces, but I believe the bws- files
list what slice each relay is assigned to.  I've put those files
(concatted) here: https://bwauth.ritter.vg/bwauth/bws-data

Those relays are indeed missing.

Mike: is it possible that relays are falling in between _slices_ as
well as _scanners_?  I thought the 'stop listening for consensus'
commit would mean that for a single scanner would use the same
consensus for all the slices in the scanner...

-tom

[0] https://gitweb.torproject.org/torflow.git/commit/NetworkScanners/BwAuthority?id=af5fa45ca82d29011676aa97703d77b403e6cf77

On 5 November 2015 at 10:48,  <starlight.2015q4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Scanner 1 finally finished the first pass.
>
> Of the list of big relays not checked
> below, three are still not checked:
>
> *Onyx           10/14
>  atomicbox1     10/21
> *naiveTorer     10/15
>
> Most interesting, ZERO evidence of
> any attempt to use the two starred
> entries appears in the scanner log.
> 'atomicbox1' was used to test
> other relays but was not tested
> itself.
>
> Can you look in the database files
> to see if any obvious reason for
> this exists?  These relays are
> very fast, Stable-flagged relays
> that rank near the top of the
> Blutmagie list.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:57:52 -0500
>>To: Tom Ritter <tom@xxxxxxxxx>
>>From: starlight.2015q4@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: stale entries in bwscan.20151029-1145
>>
>>Tom,
>>
>>Looked even more closely.
>>
>>I flittered out all relays that are
>>not currently active, ending up with
>>a list of 6303 live relays.
>>
>>1065 or 17% of them have not be
>>updated for five or more days,
>>292 or 4% have not been updated
>>for ten days, and 102 or 1%
>>have not been updated for 15
>>days.
>>
>>In particular I know of a very fast
>>high quality relay in a CDN-grade
>>network that has not been measured
>>in 13 days.  My relay Binnacle
>>is a well run relay in the
>>high-quality Verizon FiOS network
>>and has not been measured for 10 days.
>>
>>This does not seem correct.
>>
>>
>>P.S. Here is a quick list of some
>>top-30 relays that have have been
>>seriously neglected:
>>
>>redjohn1        10/9
>>becks           10/15
>>aurora          10/20
>>Onyx            10/14
>>IPredator       10/15
>>atomicbox1      10/21
>>sofia           10/14
>>naiveTorer      10/15
>>quadhead        10/12
>>3cce3a91f6a625  10/13
>>apx2            10/14
>>
>>
>>
>>>At 13:35 10/29/2015 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>The system is definetly active.  . . .the most recent file has ten day old entries?
>>>
>>>Just looked more closely.  About 2500
>>>of 8144 lines (30%) have "updated_at=" more
>>>than five days ago or 2015/10/24 00:00 UTC.
>>>
>>>Seems like something that should have
>>>an alarm check/monitor.
>
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev