commit 2308929611063d6a5fb97348a564b952e8e39f90 Author: Karsten Loesing karsten.loesing@gmx.net Date: Mon May 30 12:49:06 2011 +0200
Describe the simulations in more detail. --- task-2911/README | 95 +++++++++++++++++++- .../wfu-sim/SimulateWeightedFractionalUptime.java | 4 + 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/task-2911/README b/task-2911/README index bcefa2d..686de7a 100644 --- a/task-2911/README +++ b/task-2911/README @@ -4,7 +4,76 @@ Tech report: An Analysis of Tor Relay Stability Simulation of MTBF requirements -------------------------------
-Change to the MTBF simulation directory: +When simulating MTBF requirements, we parse status entries and server +descriptor parts. For every data point we care about the valid-after time +of the consensus, the relay fingerprint, and whether the relay had an +uptime of 3599 seconds or less when the consensus was published. The last +part is important to detect cases when a relay was contained in two +subsequent consensuses, but was restarted in the intervening time. We +rely on the uptime as reported in the server descriptor and decide whether +the relay was restarted by calculating whether the following condition +holds: + + restarted == valid-after - published + uptime < 3600 + +In the first simulation step we parse the data in reverse order from last +consensus to first. In this step we only care about time until next +failure. + +For every relay we see in a consensus we look up whether we also saw it in +the subsequently published consensus (that we parsed before). If we did +not see the relay before, we add it to our history with a time until +failure of 0 seconds. If we did see the relay, we add the seconds elapsed +between the two consensuses to the relay's time until next failure in our +history. We then write the times until next failure from our history to +disk for the second simulation step below. Before processing the next +consensus we remove all relays that have not been running in this +consensus or that have been restarted before this consensus from our +history. + +In the second simulation step we parse the data again, but in forward +order from first to last consensus. This time we're interested in the +mean time between failure for all running relays. + +We keep a history of three variables per relay to calculate its MTBF: +weighted run length, total run weights, and current run length. The first +two variables are used to track past uptime sessions whereas the third +variable tracks the current uptime session if a relay is currently +running. + +For every relay seen in a consensus we distinguish four cases: + + 1) the relay is still running, + 2) the relay is still running but has been restarted, + 3) the relay has been newly started in this consensus, and + 4) the relay has left or failed in this consensus. + +In case 1 we add the seconds elapsed since the last consensus to the +relay's current run length. + +In case 2 we add the current run length to the weighted run length, +increment the total run weights by 1, and re-initialize the current run +length with the seconds elapsed since the last consensus. + +In case 3 we initialize the current run length with the seconds elapsed +since the last consensus. + +In case 4 we add the current run length to the weighted run length, +increment the total run weights by 1, and set the current run length to 0. + +Once we're done with processing a consensus, we calculate MTBFs for all +running relays. + + weighted run length + current run length + MTBF = ---------------------------------------- + total run weights + 1 + +We sort relays by MTBF in descending order, create subsets containing the +30%, 40%, ..., 70% relays with highest MTBF, and look up mean time until +failure for these relays. We then write the mean value, 85th, 90th, and +95th percentile to disk as simulation results. + +To run the simulation, start by changing to the MTBF simulation directory:
$ cd mtbf-sim/
@@ -63,7 +132,29 @@ directory to include it in the report: Simulation of WFU requirements ------------------------------
-Change to the WFU simulation directory: +In the first simulation step we parse consensuses in reverse order to +calculate future WFU for every relay and for every published consensus. +We keep a relay history with two values for each relay: weighted uptime +and total weighted time. + +When parsing a consensus, we add 3600 seconds to the weighted uptime +variable of every running relay and 3600 seconds to the total weighted +time of all relays in our history. We then write future WFUs for all +known relays to disk by dividing weighted uptime by total weighted time. + +Every 12 hours, we multiply the weighted uptimes and total weighted times +of all relays in our history by 0.95. If the quotiend of the two +variables drops below 0.0001, we remove a relay from our history. + +In the second simulation step we parse the consensuses again, but in +forward order. The history and WFU calculation is exactly the same as in +the first simulation step. + +After calculating WFUs for all relays in the history, we look up the +future WFUs for all relays meeting certain past WFU requirements and +calculate their mean value, 85th, 90th, and 95th percentile. + +To run the simulation, start by changing to the WFU simulation directory:
$ cd wfu-sim/
diff --git a/task-2911/wfu-sim/SimulateWeightedFractionalUptime.java b/task-2911/wfu-sim/SimulateWeightedFractionalUptime.java index 6a2d7a9..d803057 100644 --- a/task-2911/wfu-sim/SimulateWeightedFractionalUptime.java +++ b/task-2911/wfu-sim/SimulateWeightedFractionalUptime.java @@ -114,6 +114,10 @@ public class SimulateWeightedFractionalUptime {
/* Increment weighted uptime for all running relays by 3600 * seconds. */ + /* TODO 3600 seconds is only correct if we're not missing a + * consensus. We could be more precise here, but it will probably + * not affect results significantly, if at all. The same applies + * to the 3600 seconds constants below. */ for (String fingerprint : fingerprints) { if (!knownRelays.containsKey(fingerprint)) { knownRelays.put(fingerprint, new long[] { 3600L, 0L });