-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/09/16 01:48, Aaron Johnson wrote:
Oops, this thread got lost in the Seattle preparations and only
surfaced today while doing some housekeeping. Please find my response
below.
>> Log files are sorted as part of the sanitizing procedure, so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/09/16 17:46, Lunar wrote:
> Karsten Loesing:
>>> If you feel that's interesting enough, would it be possible to
>>> also add the number of download of cryptographic signatures
>>> to the graph?
>
>> Sure, added.
>
> Thanks! These are
>
> Log files are sorted as part of the sanitizing procedure, so that
> request order should not be preserved. If you find a log file that is
> not sorted, please let us know, because that would be a bug.
That’s great! It just appeared ordered in that multiple related requests
appeared in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Aaron,
On 20/09/16 15:43, Aaron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Good thinking! I summarized the methodology on the graph page
>> as: The graph above is based on sanitized Tor web server logs
>> [0]. These are a stripped-down version of Apache's "combined"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Karsten Loesing:
>> If you feel that's interesting enough, would it be possible to
>> also add the number of download of cryptographic signatures to
>> the graph?
>
> Sure, added.
Thanks! These are interesting datapoints regarding the “but nobody
>
> Good thinking! I summarized the methodology on the graph page as: The
> graph above is based on sanitized Tor web server logs [0]. These are a
> stripped-down version of Apache's "combined" log format without IP
> addresses, log times, HTTP parameters, referers, and user agent strings.
...
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/09/16 18:28, Aaron Johnson wrote:
>>> Here's
>>>
>>> the same graph with more data, more request types, and of
>>> course a lot more shininess:
>>>
>>> https://tor-metrics.shinyapps.io/webstats/
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/09/16 17:52, Lunar wrote:
> Karsten Loesing:
>> On 11/09/16 18:13, Georg Koppen wrote:
>>> Here are the graphs showing initial downloads, update pings and
>>> update requests over time:
>>
>>>
Karsten Loesing:
> On 11/09/16 18:13, Georg Koppen wrote:
>> Here are the graphs showing initial downloads, update pings and
>> update requests over time:
>
>> https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/torbrowser-annotated-2016-09-11.pdf
>
>>
> Here's
>
> the same graph with more data,
This is awesome, Karsten!
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/09/16 18:13, Georg Koppen wrote:
>> Here are the graphs showing initial downloads, update pings and
>> update requests over time:
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 01:51, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> On 9/12/16 11:20 AM, David Fifield wrote:
>> Oh, thanks for finding that source code link. I looked for that code and
>> didn't find it.
>>
>> But that's exactly what I'm saying: once someone has downloaded an
>> update,
Hi,
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Rob van der Hoeven wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
> I think the behavior you see can be explained by an overloaded download
> server. From the initial downloads graph you can see that there are on
> average 80.000 downloads a day. From the update pings and update
> requests
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:12:15AM -0400, Mark Smith wrote:
> On 9/11/16 3:45 PM, David Fifield wrote:
> >> * We don't know what (8) or (9) is but it seems to us we are losing
> >> users over time and are only getting them back slowly if at all. A
> >> weekday/weekend pattern is visible there as
On 9/11/16 3:45 PM, David Fifield wrote:
>> * We don't know what (8) or (9) is but it seems to us we are losing
>> users over time and are only getting them back slowly if at all. A
>> weekday/weekend pattern is visible there as well.
>
> Does Tor Browser continue checking for further updates in
On 12 September 2016 at 03:37, Rob van der Hoeven
wrote:
> One thing bothers me. The update requests graph never touches zero. It
> should, because that would mean that all Tor browsers have been updated.
> 100.000 seems to be the lowest value.
I'm not surprised by this
Hi all!
So, Karsten, Nicolas and I were sitting together for a while and were
looking at past data for figuring out how many users downloaded and
updated their Tor Browser over time.
We actually got more questions than we were able to answer but I guess
that's fine for a start.
Here are the
16 matches
Mail list logo