OK, you may be able to match the following times with your logs - each had multiple connection failures (looks like any pending connection died). Times are in UTC
1436393744 - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:15:44 1436396224 - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:57:04 1436399231 - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:47:11 1436400042 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:42 1436400868 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:14:28 1436403696 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:01:36 1436404315 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:11:55 1436405498 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:31:38 1436406217 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:43:37 1436407074 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:57:54 1436409062 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 02:31:02 1436409898 - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 02:44:58 There's no correlation between those times and entries in my Tor client's log. Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems plausible, though from what I have logged it's hard to tell. All > the time calculations are 0, which may mean that curl completely failed > to connect, or that it's counters don't work if the connection fails > (I'm not sure which is true). > > I forgot to tell it to add a timestamp, so comparison against your logs > would be nigh on impossible - have set the same script running with > timestamps added, will keep an eye to see whether any failed connections > have been logged. > > I do, however, have some entries in my tor client logs > > Jul 08 09:03:55.000 [notice] Rend stream is 120 seconds late. Giving up > on address '[scrubbed].onion'. > > (time is UTC) > > though there aren't enough to account for all the failed connections. > > > Thomas White <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wonder if the curl 000 codes match up against our 408 codes for a > > timeout? So the connection was made, the request was about to be made > > then the circuit failed? I'm not overly familiar with the precise > > nature of curl or apache logging systems. > > > > On 08/07/2015 15:39, Ben wrote: > > >> From the client end, I've seen occasions where I couldn't connect > > >> to the > > > HS, though it's a very small percentage (around 1.5%). > > > > > > Count Status code 590 000 408391 200 > > > > > > 000 being the code curl returns when it couldn't connect. In terms > > > of time to serve, there's a fair range of variation in terms of the > > > total connection time. > > > > > > Count Seconds 45207 0 149979 1 103050 2 55134 3 27011 4 13688 5 > > > 7405 6 4022 7 2217 8 1324 9 > > > > > > All connections were established in less than a second, and the > > > time to first byte was generally < 2 seconds > > > > > > Count TTFB 590 0 408479 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 5 8 10 9 > > > > > > > > > Obviously some of the variation might be down to my client's > > > connection rather than the hidden service, it's running on a stable > > > 100Mb/s connection, though the traffic graphs show some fluctuation > > > in the bandwidth being used (attached - stats taken at the NIC so > > > likely includes other traffic though the test will be the primary > > > use). > > > > > > Happy to send the stats file in full if it's of any use to you. > > > > > > > > > Thomas White <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Just to expand on s7r's number, I just pulled the latest logs > > >> from the servers and compiled a quick breakdown of the HTTP > > >> codes, bandwidth etc for anyone interested: > > >> > > >> HTTP Code: 200 (OK) Bandwidth used (bytes): 690,400,220,422 Hits: > > >> 4,784,288 > > >> > > >> > > >> HTTP Code: 206 (Partial Content) Bandwidth used (bytes): > > >> 5,202,918 Hits: 64 > > >> > > >> > > >> HTTP Code: 304 (Not Modified) Bandwidth used (bytes): 52,059 > > >> Hits: 259 > > >> > > >> > > >> HTTP Code: 404 (Not Found) Bandwidth used (bytes): 266,053 Hits: > > >> 611 > > >> > > >> > > >> HTTP Code: 403 (Forbidden) Bandwidth used (bytes): 2,908 Hits: 7 > > >> > > >> > > >> HTTP Code: 408 (Request Timeout) Bandwidth used (bytes): 0 Hits: > > >> 5,442 > > >> > > >> > > >> Total bandwidth usage (bytes): 690,405,744,360 (690 GB) > > >> > > >> Total hits: 4,790,671 > > >> > > >> > > >> Not bad for a few days work guys! > > >> > > >> T > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 08/07/2015 03:00, s7r wrote: > > >>> *Numbers look good: Over 4 million hits in 7 days.* > > >>> > > >>> I want again to use this opportunity to say THANK YOU to > > >>> everyone who is contributing and stress testing. 4 million > > >>> requests tell me people are putting quite some effort into it. > > >>> Please continue to stress test as much as you can in the next > > >>> days. After I collect some rendezvous circuit stats also, we > > >>> will stop the test - don't want to overkill the network, prefer > > >>> to leave more bandwidth capacity for users. > > >>> > > >>> I was waiting to have some rendezvous circuit statistics as > > >>> well, to compare them with the hits on the webserver and have > > >>> an overview on the circuits stats and average number of > > >>> requests per circuit. Hopefully this will happen in the next > > >>> days. Since you asked, here are the exact numbers now. > > >>> > > >>> The service was started 1st July 2015. Here are the counts > > >>> today, 8th July (little over 7 days of uptime): > > >>> > > >>> Failback instance #1: 956281 Failback instance #2: 732187 > > >>> Failback instance #3: 837818 Failback instance #4: 768636 > > >>> Failback instance #5: 911546 ============================= > > >>> TOTAL: 4206468 > > >>> > > >>> There are no significant warnings or errors - the same > > >>> instances are running since service first started, no reboot or > > >>> application restart. I am happy with how it works. As you can > > >>> see we have *over 4 million hits*. The number of requests per > > >>> failback instance confirms the load is fairly spread. > > >>> > > >>> Hidden service http://eujuuws2nacz4xw4.onion/ up and strong! > > >>> > > >>> On 7/8/2015 1:48 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > >>>> 4. Jul 2015 22:57 by [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>: > > >>> > > >>>> After little over 3 days of uptime, the OnionBalance hidden > > >>>> service http://eujuuws2nacz4xw4.onion > > >>>> <http://eujuuws2nacz4xw4.onion/> was successfully accessed > > >>>> over 1 Million times. There was no complaint in any of the > > >>>> running Tor instance s. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Hey s7r, things still looking OK? How are the numbers now? > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To > > >> unsubscribe or change other settings go to > > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > -- > > tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] > > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
