Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
S
sbws
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 133
    • Issues 133
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 2
    • Merge Requests 2
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar

GitLab is used only for code review, issue tracking and project management. Canonical locations for source code are still https://gitweb.torproject.org/ https://git.torproject.org/ and git-rw.torproject.org.

  • The Tor Project
  • Network Health
  • sbws
  • Issues
  • #40025

Closed
Open
Created Dec 04, 2020 by juga @jugaMaintainer

Consider removing "vote=0"

This issue would be part of solving #29710 (closed).

Time ago, we added "restrictions" on which relays to add to the bandwidth file. These restrictions are that the relay should have been successfully measured at least twice (in the last 5 days) and the measurements took place in different days (more than 24h distance).

Then we added back the relays to the bandwidth file, but with the KeyValues vote=0 unmeasured=1, so that the authorities ignore them.

If we remove the vote=0 unmeasured=1 KeyValues, and give a bandwidth values to those relays, the number of relays in sbws' bandwidth file would increase.

If I interpreted correctly the way torflow behaves, it add to the bandwidth file all the relays it knows about, even if they failed to be measured last time. It uses the value it reported (see https://sbws.readthedocs.io/en/latest/torflow_aggr.html#differences-between-torflow-aggregation-and-sbws-scaling-may-2020) in its previous bandwidth file.

If we would use the last consensus weight as the bandwidth value, we could have the problem that any bug in sbws would accumulate/amplify over time (see #33871 (closed))

Edited Dec 07, 2020 by juga
Assignee
Assign to
sbws: 1.2.x-final
Milestone
sbws: 1.2.x-final
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None