Add consensus weight to relay info

$subj

Trac:
Username: hsn

added component::metrics/relay search easy owner::hellais priority::medium reporter::hsn resolution::fixed status::closed type::task labels

Not sure if adding the consensus weight would be helpful or harmful. See the Onionoo description for it:

"consensus_weight": Bandwidth weight assigned to this relay by the directory authorities. The unit is arbitrary; currently it's kilobytes per second, but that might change in the future. Required field.

I'm worried that people will ask why the displayed number of bytes per second doesn't match any of the other bandwidth numbers of their relay, regardless of how we document the field.

In fact, there's no real use of knowing the absolute consensus weight without putting it in relation to the total consensus weight of all running relays. And that's what the consensus weight fraction graph is for.

So, right now I'm leaning towards saying this information would be rather harmful.

Why do you think it's important to have this field in Atlas? What's the use case?

I need to compare announced bw / concensus bw ratio. If ration is way low, i drop relay. Atlas is fastest way to look at my relay stats.

If you are worried about user then label field: bandwidth points

Trac:
Username: hsn

Okay. I'm not really convinced that your approach is a reliable way to exclude relays, but I don't mind adding that information to Atlas if phrased correctly. I think if we never mention the word "bandwidth" but only call it "consensus weight", this should be fine. (In fact, I just rephrased the field comment in the Onionoo spec.) And if too many users are confused, we can still take it out.

Do you have a patch?

Rephrasing ticket summary to reflect my suggestion to not call it bandwidth but only weight.

Trac:
Summary: Add concensus bw to relay info to Add consensus weight to relay info

No, i do not have patch.

Trac:
Username: hsn

Want to write one? Shouldn't be that hard, I guess. The repository is here: https://gitweb.torproject.org/atlas.git

I do not want to learn another web framework.

Trac:
Username: hsn

Okay. Leaving this ticket open. Maybe someone else wants to write a patch. (Feel free to ping me if this doesn't happen in, say, two weeks from now.)

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, easy added

I wonder, if we add consensus weight, should we also add average/burst/observed bandwidth to the details page?

burst is useless

Trac:
Username: hsn

I have a patch in https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/phw/atlas.git in the branch show_consensus_weight. As suggested by Karsten, the patch does not make use of the term "bandwidth". Instead, I simply copied the onionoo field description.

Trac:
Status: new to needs_review

For what it's worth, I'm also skeptical about the usefulness of this field. I think we should only display additional information if a large fraction of users would find it useful and I'm not sure if this is the case with the consensus weight. However, I'm OK with giving it a try and seeing how it goes.

Looks good, deployed. I also checked that consensus_weight is a required field. Otherwise we could have run into a bug where we display the consensus weight of another relay if a relay doesn't have the consensus_weight set. See one of the last fixed tickets for details.

Creating a new ticket for average/burst/observed bandwidth in a moment.

Closing. Thanks!

Trac:
Status: needs_review to closed
Resolution: N/A to fixed

Took more than a moment, but here is the new ticket for average/burst/observed bandwidth: #9348 (moved).

closed

mentioned in issue #9348 (moved)