(It really would help if you posted your replies below the previous reply.)
On 9 Nov. 2016, at 10:07, r1610091651 r1610091651@telenet.be wrote:
Based on found numbers, some thoughts:
- shouldn't there be more authority servers? DNS system has 13 root servers spread over the globe…
There are 5 bandwidth authorities, we're working on getting more.
- not all authority servers are equal:
** reported data varies greatly between servers https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2016-11-08-19-00.ht...: maatuska=1400 <> gabelmoo=4060
Yes, the speed measured by a bandwidth authority depends on: * location of the bandwidth authority, * time of measurement, * randomly chosen relay pair, * latency and bandwidth through that pair to the remote download site, * other load on the bandwidth authority and relays at the time.
In general, the further away your relay is from the bandwidth authority, the lower the measurement will be.
** some authorities vary greatly in reported data: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2016-11-08-19-00.ht...: gabelmoo=4060 https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2016-11-08-18-00.ht...: gabelmoo=2110
Yes, measurements are timing and load dependent.
- authority participating in consensus change, and with only few active (4-5) at a time, impact of a single authority on network is amplified
This is why the median is used.
By having more servers
- consensus would be more stable (low-median)
- leading to more accurate assessment of nodes
- and wider utilisation of the available nodes
- leading to higher network throughput
Does that sound plausible?
The first two, yes, the last two, perhaps. Maybe lower latency is more important than throughput?
But each bandwidth authority uses bandwidth that would otherwise be available to clients. So there is a tradeoff.
T