[tor-dev] Is there strictly a one-to-one BW scanner to BW auth relationship?

Rob Jansen rob.g.jansen at nrl.navy.mil
Sat Mar 24 12:50:18 UTC 2018

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 8:21 PM, Roger Dingledine <arma at mit.edu> wrote:
> I believe there are no scanners that supply answers to multiple directory
> authorities.

Great! IIRC, at one point in the distant past this was not the case.

> You could in theory check whether this is true in practice by seeing if
> any dir auths vote the same numbers.

Did that; nobody is voting the same numbers. So presumably that means all bwauths are using independent numbers.

I was concerned because bastet and moria1 both stopped voting anything for each of two of my >2 year old relays during distinct time intervals yesterday. I mean there were missing votes, rather than votes of no or low bandwidth. This caused a consensus of Unmeasured=1 and BW=20 for several hours. See [0] if you want to see what I mean by missing votes - I noticed that this happens in every consensus I viewed for at least some number of relays.

I guess maybe I restarted my relays at just the right time to cause a scanner to go nonlinear or something. Things seem to be back to normal now, though. I'm going to chalk this up as bad error handling in the TorFlow code, because that accusation is easy and generally agreeable :D

> I think moria1 runs its own, and Faravahar runs its own. I've lost track
> of the others, but I'd guess that bastet also runs its own, and that
> maatuska pulls numbers from a bwauth that tjr runs.
> https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#bwauthstatus

Hmm. I wish we were more transparent about who is running scanners and which bwauths consume results from which scanners. Something to keep in mind for those of us working on next-gen replacement scanners.

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Matthew Finkel <matthew.finkel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not the original question Rob asked, but a year ago there was a session
> and the (reformatted) notes contain:

Thanks Matt! That is useful :)


[0] Warning, this page is quite large, it contains an entry for every relay in the consensus:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20180324/3505e1a0/attachment.sig>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list