15:00:08 #startmeeting metrics team 15:00:08 Meeting started Thu May 2 15:00:08 2019 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:15 hi! 15:00:36 hi gaba! 15:00:57 so funny I got confused :) 15:01:04 good that it is 'just' weekly meeting 15:01:09 haha 15:01:24 gaba: it's ok, i had the jitsi set up and ready to go too 15:01:39 :) 15:02:03 * karsten tries to remember what else needs discussion... 15:03:05 anyway, agenda is complete? 15:03:27 nothing else from me 15:04:06 okay, let's start then. 15:04:11 - Research portal. What are we missing for new one? https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/26838 15:04:25 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/26838#comment:8 15:04:29 i just commented on there 15:04:34 basically two ux things 15:04:43 i'd like to do #29560 too 15:04:53 but i could theoretically do all this and deploy it in an evening 15:05:31 you would deploy https://research-staging.torproject.org/ as the new research portal 15:05:35 yeah 15:05:49 to do that i go to the directory and type "make production" 15:05:52 and that is it 15:06:18 ja, ok 15:06:21 should we track it on our roadmap anyway? 15:06:26 karsten: waht do you think? 15:06:29 yes, we can add it 15:06:46 it is only one day of work I think it is just fine to launch it 15:06:51 i think we should add it, and i should see how much progress i can make on it today and just deploy it if it's good enough 15:07:08 antonela already signed off on the ux being good enough if i do those two things 15:07:13 then mike could be updating the research ideas with the stuff for the performance grant from mozilla 15:07:14 I haven't looked yet, but I trust irl to do the right thing there. 15:07:27 sounds good 15:07:39 gaba: yeah, i really want to make this live so we can start using it more 15:07:59 * gaba is adding it to the roadmap if you all are ok with it. 15:08:06 (: 15:08:06 sounds good to me. 15:08:45 next topic? 15:08:48 ok 15:08:51 ok 15:08:54 - sbws bandwidth files update (karsten) 15:09:12 I just finished a collector patch that downloads bandwidth files. 15:09:28 it requires a patch release of metrics-lib, because we made a mistake there. 15:09:37 and it requires review and a collector release. 15:09:54 is review monday going to be too late? 15:09:57 I wonder if I should set it to needs_review and then let it run on my own server for a week. 15:10:04 I think it's just fine. 15:10:09 ok cool 15:10:24 I think deploying tomorrow morning and then leaving for a week would be too much of an adventure. ;) 15:10:35 aha 15:11:17 okay. 15:11:29 this was mostly an update. 15:11:36 next update is: 15:11:37 - OnionPerf updates (karsten) 15:12:03 we discussed a few improvements there. 15:12:08 we = acute and I 15:12:40 including better error codes in .tpf and .json output and partial completion timestamps. 15:12:55 #26673 is now on review 15:12:56 but all these things use existing logs and just provide better output when processing them. 15:13:43 well, I assume that we can use existing logs. pending confirmation. 15:13:52 yes, we can 15:13:58 okay, cool! 15:14:17 I suggest we try to do this once #26673 gets merged 15:14:50 or maybe we can also include #29787, so that we don't do it twice? 15:15:12 then we'll have an understanding of what may go wrongt once the new errors codes are supported 15:15:47 regarding timing, I won't be able to do any reprocessing next week. 15:15:53 I could do it the week after. 15:16:26 if you're ok with this, I can work on the code to do it 15:16:32 yes, sure! 15:16:37 perfect! 15:16:47 (I may already have a script in progress...) 15:16:51 heh 15:17:11 oh, another thing regarding OnionPerf: 15:17:24 we should talk about some operational/deployment-related things in 1.5 weeks from now: 15:17:49 new tor versions, available disk space, different weights for 50k/1m/5m downloads. 15:18:56 and finally, I'll look into making new graphs as soon as logs are reprocessed. 15:19:02 i was thinking we might upgrade op-ab to the latest onionperf codebase and tor version next week assuming no more urgent tasks come up 15:19:10 one thing i did notice, we don't have the torperf data in the graphs anymore 15:19:26 the graphs only start with onionperf instances 15:19:31 did we do this deliberately? 15:19:36 sounds good, with regards to different weights for 50k/1m/5m downloads: I'd like to better understand how the the *tpf files produced by OP are used 15:20:04 irl: next week for the op-ab upgrade sounds good to me! 15:20:11 well, also depends on acute's availability 15:20:33 yep, anytime after Wed 15:20:36 ok 15:20:50 irl: not sure what you mean wrt. removing torperf data. 15:21:11 the graphs on tor metrics no longer show data 2007-2017 15:21:18 ah! 15:21:20 they only show data from op- instances 15:21:25 no, that's a bug then. 15:21:39 do you want to create a ticket? 15:21:43 ok, will do 15:21:50 great, thanks! 15:22:02 (I might not be able to fix that today/tomorrow.) 15:22:14 that's ok 15:22:18 as long as we're tracking it 15:22:26 acute: not sure what you mean wrt. usage of .tpf files and weights. 15:22:31 irl: ok. 15:22:54 acute: my idea was that as soon as we have partial completion timestamps we can make fewer 50k requests and more 1m and 5m requests. 15:23:07 because they will contain the same information that is also available in 50k requests. 15:23:08 ok, so do we need to change things further down the pipeline to make use of the new partial completion times? 15:23:19 yes, certainly! 15:23:32 ah, maybe we can wait a bit then. 15:23:41 we should keep https://metrics.torproject.org/reproducible-metrics.html#performance updated 15:23:44 like, make new timestamps available, wait a few weeks, then change weights. 15:23:49 i don't think it knows about v3 onions yet 15:23:50 so do we want to wait until we implement this 15:24:02 yes, exactly! 15:24:28 acute: we should implement the new timestamps soon, but wait a bit before changing weights. 15:24:40 and we should announce the new timestamps as soon as they're available. 15:24:51 ugh, no v3 onions in that doc? 15:24:52 sounds like a good transition plan to me! 15:25:08 we just say "public" vs "onion" but not v2/3 15:26:02 acute: did you write text for this already in the project report or did we drop it? 15:26:15 I remember karsten making changes to support v3 address matching 15:26:26 it was an appendix in the project report to the funder 15:26:39 so it's just that this document was not updated 15:26:44 acute: exactly. 15:26:45 yes I did write text for this 15:26:56 ok so maybe we have a patch for the text already 15:27:44 https://gitweb.torproject.org/metrics-web.git/commit/?id=7af8f108136b5bb37a0e88f794ce7154c4660ba9 15:27:49 that was the commit. 15:28:25 do you want to create a ticket and prepare a patch? 15:28:36 ok, I'll do a metrics-web patch 15:28:42 awesome! 15:29:08 cool! 15:29:09 anything else on the OP topic? 15:29:42 yes 15:29:55 wrt #26597 15:30:28 not sure where to go with this ticket 15:31:21 so, regarding the last comment there, did you find that tor uses relays with the Guard flag as first hop? 15:31:33 ticket assumes that we were not using guards as first hops when building circuits through OP - but we found that we are 15:31:40 which wouldn't be exactly the same as using a small set of guards as first hops for all circuits. 15:32:18 does this make sense? 15:32:34 yes, it does use (diverse) relays with the guard flag set - I wrote some code to check this for #29373 15:33:22 so, the difference might be that OP is picking a new relay with Guard flag as guard for a new, pre-built circuit. 15:33:43 whereas vanilla tor uses a relay it has used before as guard which makes it unnecessary to first connect to it. 15:34:06 just a quick thought. I haven't looked at #29373 yet. 15:34:19 I'll cc myself on #26597 to see what to do with it. 15:34:30 oh, I'm already cc'ed. 15:35:08 this makes sense, I think that is exactly what happens 15:35:37 okay, feel free to comment on the ticket. I'll take a closer look later today or tomorrow morning. 15:35:45 thank you 15:35:55 sure! 15:35:59 anything else on OP? 15:36:19 not from me 15:37:43 okay. 15:37:50 - only reminder: May 16th 14UTC to talk about funding and nlnet (gaba) 15:37:55 added to my diary 15:38:00 ok 15:38:05 that will be a busy day! 15:38:14 i'm not sure about the direction this is going 15:38:15 likewise, noted. 15:38:16 i've lost track 15:38:25 i guess i will find out on the call 15:38:31 yes :) 15:38:41 by the way, 15:38:46 tordnsel broke over the weekend. 15:38:54 but then it fixed itself 15:38:57 so it's fine (: 15:39:02 the active scans were broken for several days. 15:39:13 a reboot fixed the issue. 15:39:48 apparently nothing else broke due to this. 15:39:49 good that it fixed itself but I guess you tracked the problem, right? 15:39:58 we have no idea why it broke. 15:40:01 or how to find out. 15:40:07 it's a black box. 15:40:55 anyway. 15:41:00 next topic? 15:41:29 is there anything in the roadmap that needs to be moved around/updated/deleted that was not the stuff already discussed 15:42:31 not for me 15:42:36 loading... 15:43:13 hmm, the roadmap doesn't like me. 15:43:15 there is ab ug... 15:43:16 bug 15:43:21 click on 'all the boards' 15:43:23 #29374 can be moved to done if it's on review 15:43:24 at the top 15:43:27 and then in the metrics one 15:43:34 oh. works now. 15:43:46 this did not work for me 15:44:31 can you reload and try again? 15:44:33 we are starting to text the nextcloud from riseup and we may migrate to that in the future 15:45:31 sadly it loads then presents a gray screen 15:45:37 :( 15:45:58 but I think that's the only update :) 15:46:01 so, my two in-progress cards are still in progress, too. 15:46:44 ok 15:47:37 that means the roadmap is fine for now? 15:47:48 yes 15:47:51 seems fine 15:47:59 i checked all the other tickets 15:48:15 one more thing is to start thinking about sessions for the meeting in july 15:48:41 but we can have that specific conversation during the monthly meeting 15:48:52 okay. 15:49:12 i'm still not clear on who we even invited 15:49:36 I can looked it up and we can review that list in the monthly meeting if you want 15:50:32 the expenses deadline is the 11th, so that would be too late to make any changes 15:50:37 i guess it is already too late though 15:50:48 but to work out what sessions we want we first need to know who we have 15:51:01 does the wiki have a list of people who will be there? 15:51:29 i think we still did not organized that part of the wiki 15:51:32 only a list of people that added themselves 15:51:43 ok. 15:52:20 should we move this discussion to email? 15:52:27 that sounds good 15:52:31 sounds good 15:52:34 great! 15:52:48 out of agenda items! 15:53:07 no meeting next week, I guess? (unless you want to meet without me, of course.) 15:53:32 i think no meeting 15:53:38 no meeting is fine :) 15:53:48 we will have double the week after :P 15:54:05 hehe 15:54:16 heh 15:54:24 alright. thanks, everyone! 15:54:33 have a good day/evening. bye! 15:54:38 bye! 15:54:38 bye! 15:54:45 bye! 15:54:45 #endmeeting