Skip to content
GitLab
  • Menu
Projects Groups Snippets
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
  • S sbws
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 5
    • Issues 5
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 0
    • Merge requests 0
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • The Tor Project
  • Network Health
  • sbws
  • Issues
  • #33871
Closed
Open
Created Apr 10, 2020 by juga@jugaMaintainer

Scale exactly as torflow does?

legacy/trac#33775 (moved) shows that if sbws calculates low consensus bandwidth because of missing descriptors and the rest of bwauths are also using sbws, it'd enter in a spiral in which it'd keep measuring low. I think this is because while torflow multiplies the calculated ratio by the descriptor observed bandwidth [0], while sbws multiplies the ratio by the minimum of all descriptor bandwidth values and the consensus, which was added in legacy/trac#28598 (moved). So maybe the new consensus bandwidth should not depend on the previous one, or not as the minimum. For a relation on how bandwidth values depend on each other, see [1]

[0] https://onbasca.readthedocs.io/en/latest/torflow_aggr.html [1] https://onbasca.readthedocs.io/en/latest/bandwidth_tor.html#bandwidth-values-origin

Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking