[tor-dev] stale entries in bwscan.20151029-1145
tom at ritter.vg
Thu Nov 5 17:11:36 UTC 2015
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...
On 5 November 2015 at 10:48, <starlight.2015q4 at 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
> 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 at ritter.vg>
>>From: starlight.2015q4 at binnacle.cx
>>Subject: Re: stale entries in bwscan.20151029-1145
>>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
>>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
>>>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.
More information about the tor-dev