16:16:27 #startmeeting network-health 2024-05-06 16:16:27 Meeting started Mon May 6 16:16:27 2024 UTC. The chair is hiro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:16:27 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 16:17:00 here is the usual meeting pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-nethealthteam-2023-keep 16:17:09 o/ 16:18:06 ok nothing bold on the pad good 16:18:23 I have a little psa i am out next week, so I was wondering what you wanted to do with the meeting? 16:18:55 no strong opinion on my side 16:19:04 we could just cancel it or someone else runs it 16:19:08 *shrugs* 16:19:15 yeah up to you and @juga 16:19:22 same as GeKo 16:19:28 what do you prefer? for me it is ok to cancel and we sync in lisbon 16:19:42 cancel 16:19:46 ok 16:19:56 sounds good then, no meeting next week 16:19:57 leaves time for other work :) 16:20:23 great! 16:21:13 o/ 16:21:20 hello @ggus 16:21:30 meetup is on sat right? 16:21:37 1900 utc? 16:21:58 is there anything needed from our side? the agenda looks good 16:22:20 yes 16:22:50 the agenda; https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-relay-may24-meetup-keep 16:22:58 i'll ask pavel to promote on social media 16:23:23 nice 16:24:40 do we have any updates regarding conflux performance? 16:24:56 regarding graphs you mean 16:24:57 ? 16:25:03 yes 16:25:11 I am still pondering if it makes sense to do extra graphs 16:25:17 I have mixed feelings 16:25:52 because I do not want to give the idea that we have to defend that 16:25:58 what do you think @GeKo ? 16:26:23 we have graphs on the website... I could just make them bigger 16:26:27 and it seems that some operators have disabled conflux on their exits (or i had that impression by reading some emails on tor-relays). should we verify that? 16:26:35 so these are easier to read 16:26:49 I have asked directly ggus and it seems this was somethign temporary 16:27:06 i am not a fan of extra graphs 16:27:32 pointing to onionperf stats on metrics.tpo should be enough 16:27:52 iirc they show how conflux improved throughput 16:28:51 yep 16:29:22 https://metrics.torproject.org/onionperf-throughput.html 16:29:49 https://metrics.torproject.org/onionperf-throughput.png?start=2024-02-06&end=2024-05-06&server=public 16:30:00 just compare the conflux with the non-conflux variants 16:30:48 we or look at the csv powering that graph and import that into whatever graphing you wanna do 16:31:04 s/we// 16:32:17 yeah I think I agree... 16:32:33 my doubt comes from the fact that the graph is all squashed 16:32:56 and I wanted to download the csv and put it in the presentation gus does at the meetup so that people can read it properly 16:32:57 did we already share this graph on that mail thread about disabling conflux? 16:33:22 no it wasn't shared in the thread but it was mentioned at the last meetup 16:34:20 hiro: i think i tis kind of squashed as the de-conflux seems to be busted 16:34:27 which is probably a thing we should fix? 16:34:35 yeah for public downloads 16:34:39 I have no idea why 16:34:43 it just gives 0s back 16:34:53 * GeKo the onionperf saga continues... 16:34:56 it uses the same configuration and firewall rules as op-de 16:35:49 I have even recreated the machien and run on the side... but something is not working with iptables anymore... 16:36:25 and I wonder why 16:36:29 it is only with aws 16:36:38 and on that datacenter for de 16:36:44 if you look at the .png it's not too hard to check out the details for the hk8 and us8 cases, just ignore the de8 one 16:38:05 yeah I think that works too, let's see how we can frame this @ggus 16:39:24 oh, i guess that's https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/metrics/onionperf/-/issues/40072 as well 16:39:35 yep I have it for this week 16:40:24 very weird 16:40:41 yes... 16:41:04 anyways 16:41:59 is there anything else @ggus? 16:42:35 yes, do we have any tool to check if an exit has disabled conflux? 16:42:59 hrm 16:43:37 not that i know of 16:44:41 is that published in any of the relay's descriptor documents? 16:44:43 https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2024-April/021595.html 16:44:49 > This tor is a relay and ConfluxEnabled is set to 0. We would ask you 16:44:49 > to please write to us on tor-relay at lists.torproject.org or file a bug 16:44:49 > explaining why you have disabled this option. Without news from you, 16:44:50 i am not sure whether we can easily detect that anyway. dgoulet might know 16:44:50 > we might end up marking your relay as a BadExit. 16:45:02 we should add this to the bad relays criteria wiki page 16:45:06 yeah, i was thinkin about that 16:45:11 i did that already 16:45:18 +1 16:45:42 juga: well, the capability is published in the proto line 16:45:56 but i think that one is not affected by torrc changes 16:46:06 GeKo: ic, thanks 16:48:37 GeKo: nice! 16:49:46 hiro: if you need something from me for the exception reporting framework lemme know 16:50:16 are we supposed to ack the estimations gaba shared? i think i forgot about that part... 16:50:30 I thought that was an example ? 16:50:42 I didn't check that yet 16:51:25 I wanted to ask you if you had time tomorrow or wed to double check that with me... I think some of the activities we can use similar estimation to the other grant application we did that wasn't accepted 16:51:38 let's do wed 16:51:50 i think i need the time tomorrow to prep the s112 sync 16:52:02 sounds good 16:52:26 which reminds me, we have s112 sync one hour earlier 16:52:34 1500 utc 16:53:22 yep! 16:54:22 ok nice! 16:54:34 is everyone good? 16:54:40 * juga is 16:54:43 * GeKo is 16:54:49 * hiro is too 16:54:51 hiro: i might not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. but i can update the pad 16:54:58 ok thanks @ggus 16:55:18 ggus: sounds good. 16:55:29 might be worth sync at some point, though 16:55:52 maybe lisbon would be enough assuming i 'll make it 16:56:06 * hiro hopes so 16:56:18 * juga too 16:56:19 in 2weeks /o\ 16:56:42 yeah, time is flying :) 16:56:48 yeah 16:57:39 ggus: quick question do we have a documentation sync on thu? 16:58:28 hiro: i'm not sure 16:58:31 gaba: do you know? 16:59:10 * GeKo gotta go ttyl! 16:59:18 byeeee 16:59:19 nc says so 16:59:28 anyways we can check later 16:59:35 let's close the meeting 16:59:38 #endmeeting