One more question, if I were to restart my relay now, would that mean that my mid time between failures would NOT get closer to 6 days? That’s what is at now. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone > On May 2, 2018, at 2:33 AM, teor <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On 2 May 2018, at 19:20, Iain Learmonth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/05/18 09:50, teor wrote: >>> Being in the consensus is called "Running", but what it actually means is >>> that a majority of directory authorities found your relay reachable. >>> >>> So perhaps we could use: >>> * uptime for the amount of time since the tor process started >>> * reachable time for the amount of time the relay has been online and >>> available to clients >> >> I will raise this issue at the next Metrics team meeting on Thursday. >> I'm not sure how many clients we would break if we rename the uptime >> documents, but maybe it's the right thing to do in the long run. > > I think you should prioritise renaming things in relay search and the > metrics website. > > Renaming backends isn't as high a priority: updating the specification > is much cheaper, and it achieves a similar outcome. > > T > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
