ERROR: Unable to retrieve the consensus from dizum (http://194.109.206.212:80/tor/status-vote/current/consensus): <urlopen error timed out> ERROR: Unable to retrieve the vote from dizum (http://194.109.206.212:80/tor/status-vote/current/authority): <urlopen error timed out> NOTICE: The following directory authorities recommend other client versions than the consensus: gabelmoo -0.3.5.4-alpha NOTICE: The following directory authorities recommend other server versions than the consensus: gabelmoo -0.3.5.4-alpha NOTICE: Consensus fetched from maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from longclaw was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from bastet was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from gabelmoo was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from moria1 was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from dannenberg was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from Faravahar was missing the following authority signatures: dizum WARNING: The following authorities are missing from the consensus: dizum NOTICE: Bandwidth authorities have a substantially different number of measured entries: maatuska (7158), longclaw (5412), bastet (7152), gabelmoo (6972), moria1 (7162), Faravahar (7034)
Since longclaw is running different BWAuth code do we only want to compare it with others using the shiny new thing? Or should it be similar to the others? On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:07 PM <atagar@torproject.org> wrote:
ERROR: Unable to retrieve the consensus from dizum (http://194.109.206.212:80/tor/status-vote/current/consensus): <urlopen error timed out> ERROR: Unable to retrieve the vote from dizum (http://194.109.206.212:80/tor/status-vote/current/authority): <urlopen error timed out> NOTICE: The following directory authorities recommend other client versions than the consensus: gabelmoo -0.3.5.4-alpha NOTICE: The following directory authorities recommend other server versions than the consensus: gabelmoo -0.3.5.4-alpha NOTICE: Consensus fetched from maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from longclaw was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from bastet was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from gabelmoo was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from moria1 was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from dannenberg was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from Faravahar was missing the following authority signatures: dizum WARNING: The following authorities are missing from the consensus: dizum NOTICE: Bandwidth authorities have a substantially different number of measured entries: maatuska (7158), longclaw (5412), bastet (7152), gabelmoo (6972), moria1 (7162), Faravahar (7034)_______________________________________________ tor-consensus-health mailing list tor-consensus-health@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health
Hi Damian, the goal is to learn about issues with it, so please keep the comparison and notifications alive. The case spotted here is very likely a real issue. Cheers Sebastian
On 5. Nov 2018, at 22:14, Damian Johnson <atagar@torproject.org> wrote:
Since longclaw is running different BWAuth code do we only want to compare it with others using the shiny new thing? Or should it be similar to the others?
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:07 PM <atagar@torproject.org> wrote:
ERROR: Unable to retrieve the consensus from dizum (http://194.109.206.212:80/tor/status-vote/current/consensus): <urlopen error timed out> ERROR: Unable to retrieve the vote from dizum (http://194.109.206.212:80/tor/status-vote/current/authority): <urlopen error timed out> NOTICE: The following directory authorities recommend other client versions than the consensus: gabelmoo -0.3.5.4-alpha NOTICE: The following directory authorities recommend other server versions than the consensus: gabelmoo -0.3.5.4-alpha NOTICE: Consensus fetched from maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from longclaw was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from bastet was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from gabelmoo was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from moria1 was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from dannenberg was missing the following authority signatures: dizum NOTICE: Consensus fetched from Faravahar was missing the following authority signatures: dizum WARNING: The following authorities are missing from the consensus: dizum NOTICE: Bandwidth authorities have a substantially different number of measured entries: maatuska (7158), longclaw (5412), bastet (7152), gabelmoo (6972), moria1 (7162), Faravahar (7034)_______________________________________________ tor-consensus-health mailing list tor-consensus-health@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health
_______________________________________________ tor-consensus-health mailing list tor-consensus-health@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health
Sebastian Hahn <mail@sebastianhahn.net> writes:
the goal is to learn about issues with it, so please keep the comparison and notifications alive. The case spotted here is very likely a real issue.
The lower number for sbws is expected, it is because sbws applies restriction to the relays it chooses to add to the report. -- micah
micah anderson <micah@riseup.net> writes:
Sebastian Hahn <mail@sebastianhahn.net> writes:
the goal is to learn about issues with it, so please keep the comparison and notifications alive. The case spotted here is very likely a real issue.
The lower number for sbws is expected, it is because sbws applies restriction to the relays it chooses to add to the report.
Sorry, should have included this parent ticket detailing the differences: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28042 the 1st two children are the ones that I think eliminate the most relays. thanks to juga for helping me find that! -- micah
micah anderson:
micah anderson <micah@riseup.net> writes:
Sebastian Hahn <mail@sebastianhahn.net> writes:
the goal is to learn about issues with it, so please keep the comparison and notifications alive. The case spotted here is very likely a real issue.
The lower number for sbws is expected, it is because sbws applies restriction to the relays it chooses to add to the report.
Sorry, should have included this parent ticket detailing the differences:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28042
the 1st two children are the ones that I think eliminate the most relays.
thanks to juga for helping me find that!
and sorry i didn't see this thread before. I just replied to a different one :/
participants (5)
-
atagar＠torproject.org -
Damian Johnson
-
juga -
micah anderson -
Sebastian Hahn