Re: [tor-relays] consensus-health.html and fallback dirs
> On 16 Dec 2018, at 17:01, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: > > The cause is > > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/commit/?id=78e177d622f5f3b24023d04458f5948275a44766 > > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24803 > > Would be appreciated if the Tor project published outputs > of UpdateFallbackDirs.py job runs used when rebuilding > the list. Thus operators who have expended effort to keep > their relays eligible will know why when dropped. We usually attach the logs to the relevant ticket. This time, I saved the logs, but accidentally overwrote them. And I didn't ask Colin to attach his logs. We'll try to do better next time: I've added a note on the ticket for 2019. > On 17 Dec 2018, at 10:45, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: > > Ran the script: output is attached to this message for anyone > interested. Live-network test results will vary by time and by > the location of tester. Attached run was made over Tor > itself using 'torsocks'. Thanks! > I was bit by having disabled the unencrypted DIR port for > one day recently as an experiment. We rely on onionoo's last changed field: https://metrics.torproject.org/onionoo.html#details_relay_last_changed_address_or_port Changing or removing a published address or port resets the last changed date. Adding an IPv6 address does not reset the last changed date. I realise that it's disappointing for relay operators to lose a flag. But we're not too worried if a fallback drops out of the list for a release or two: changing the fallback list regularly makes it harder to block. And that's good for users. T___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] consensus-health.html and fallback dirs
Ran the script: output is attached to this message for anyone interested. Live-network test results will vary by time and by the location of tester. Attached run was made over Tor itself using 'torsocks'. I was bit by having disabled the unencrypted DIR port for one day recently as an experiment. >Felix zwiebel at quantentunnel.de >Sun Dec 16 10:03:33 UTC 2018 > >>> I wonder how we can come from 116 running fallbacks to 155 within >>> one week (without a new release) > >Am 16.12.2018 um 08:01 schrieb starlight.2018q2 at binnacle.cx: >> The cause is >> >> https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/commit/?id=78e177d622f5f3b24023d04458f5948275a44766 > >Ah, great! This makes sense. It's a transient to the list update. > > > >> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24803 > >The upcoming one seems to be: >https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28795 > >-- >Cheers, Felix > fallback_dirs.log.xz Description: Binary data ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] consensus-health.html and fallback dirs
>> I wonder how we can come from 116 running fallbacks to 155 within >> one week (without a new release) Am 16.12.2018 um 08:01 schrieb starlight.201...@binnacle.cx: > The cause is > > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/commit/?id=78e177d622f5f3b24023d04458f5948275a44766 Ah, great! This makes sense. It's a transient to the list update. > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24803 The upcoming one seems to be: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28795 -- Cheers, Felix ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] consensus-health.html and fallback dirs
The cause is https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/commit/?id=78e177d622f5f3b24023d04458f5948275a44766 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24803 Would be appreciated if the Tor project published outputs of UpdateFallbackDirs.py job runs used when rebuilding the list. Thus operators who have expended effort to keep their relays eligible will know why when dropped. >Felix zwiebel at quantentunnel.de >Sat Dec 15 23:59:03 UTC 2018 > >Hi everybody > >Reading [1] shows the following statistics about the fallback dirs: > >Dec 5: >Running116 >Not Running0 >Missing34 > >Dec 13: >Running155 >Not Running0 >Missing2 > >Today (Dec 16) shows: >Running151 >Not Running0 >Missing6 > >I wonder how we can come from 116 running fallbacks to 155 within one >week (without a new release): > > >Then I checked for some fallbacks and found: > >The relay with the fp F9246DEF2B653807236DA134F2AEAB103D58ABFE was a >fallback acc. fallback_dirs.inc until around 3.2.8rc, then it changed >ip. It is still in 2.9.x lts but with the old ip, recommended but >actually useless. > >Since around Dec 13 it is listed again [1] where it wasn't through 2018. > >The same with 8FA37B93397015B2BC5A525C908485260BE9F422. > >Are the two relays newly counted as running in [1], where they are >useless because of the changed ips? The new ips aren't in any >fallback_dirs.inc's and [2] shows no fallback flag. >Would thereby [1] look better than it is? > > >[1] https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html >[2] >https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/F9246DEF2B653807236DA134F2AEAB103D58ABFE > >-- >Cheers, Felix ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] consensus-health.html and fallback dirs
Hi everybody Reading [1] shows the following statistics about the fallback dirs: Dec 5: Running 116 Not Running 0 Missing 34 Dec 13: Running 155 Not Running 0 Missing 2 Today (Dec 16) shows: Running 151 Not Running 0 Missing 6 I wonder how we can come from 116 running fallbacks to 155 within one week (without a new release): Then I checked for some fallbacks and found: The relay with the fp F9246DEF2B653807236DA134F2AEAB103D58ABFE was a fallback acc. fallback_dirs.inc until around 3.2.8rc, then it changed ip. It is still in 2.9.x lts but with the old ip, recommended but actually useless. Since around Dec 13 it is listed again [1] where it wasn't through 2018. The same with 8FA37B93397015B2BC5A525C908485260BE9F422. Are the two relays newly counted as running in [1], where they are useless because of the changed ips? The new ips aren't in any fallback_dirs.inc's and [2] shows no fallback flag. Would thereby [1] look better than it is? [1] https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html [2] https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/F9246DEF2B653807236DA134F2AEAB103D58ABFE -- Cheers, Felix ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
