Uptime Sanity Checking [closed]

Nick Mathewson nickm at freehaven.net
Sat Mar 10 07:43:11 UTC 2007

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:45:28PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:01:16PM -0800, coderman wrote:
> > On 3/8/07, Nick Mathewson <nickm at freehaven.net> wrote:
> > >I think a fix_able_ cap probably gets us most of the benefit: if we
> > >change the cap, only the directory servers need to change their code
> > >or configuration.
> > 
> > seems reasonable; the nature of the network is going to vary (perhaps
> > significantly) with size and age...
> Ok. I think we're all happy to accept this proposal -- Nick, can
> you check it into the proposals section and integrate this thread
> into a 'decisions' section or something?

Done.  Since you've implemented it, I've made the original "cap
uptime" idea a proposal in 107, then amended it with the decided
interpretation.  I've put my MTBF idea in as proposal 108.

Nick Mathewson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20070310/052ec4db/attachment.pgp>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list