[+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...
On 5 November 2015 at 10:48, starlight.2015q4@binnacle.cx 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@ritter.vg From: starlight.2015q4@binnacle.cx 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.