atlas says MB when it should say MBytes

https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/34E32AB47CFDDB20CC41E4D58B64EB93FA8C90F7 says "MB" which is ambiguous.

We should explicitly call it MBytes.

(Pointed out by Jeroen)

added component::metrics/relay search owner::phw priority::medium resolution::fixed status::closed type::defect labels

Why is MB/s ambiguous? There's no MBytes on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units. I'd say leave this as MB/s.

Trac:
Status: new to needs_information

Why is MB/s ambiguous?

Because it could mean MegaBytes/second or Megabits/second

There's no MBytes on ​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units.

That is because networking code is typically measured in Megabits/second.

Tor is application level though, and thus everywhere in Tor the unit is Megabytes/sec.

Note also that "MB" is ambiguous in wether it is 1024 or 1000...

Trac:
Username: massar

Replying to massar:

Why is MB/s ambiguous?

Because it could mean MegaBytes/second or Megabits/second

No, Megabits/second would be Mb/s.

There's no MBytes on ​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units.

That is because networking code is typically measured in Megabits/second.

Tor is application level though, and thus everywhere in Tor the unit is Megabytes/sec.

Note also that "MB" is ambiguous in wether it is 1024 or 1000...

No, 1024 would be MiB.

How about we extend the tooltip text of Advertised Bandwidth to say: "Bandwidth that the relay is willing and capable to provide in bytes per second"?

Replying to karsten:

How about we extend the tooltip text of Advertised Bandwidth to say: "Bandwidth that the relay is willing and capable to provide in bytes per second"?

Sounds good to me. If nobody changed their mind, the following branch would fix this: https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/phw/atlas.git/shortlog/refs/heads/bug_9920

Trac:
Status: needs_information to needs_review

Trac:
Owner: hellais to phw
Status: needs_review to assigned

Looks good to me! But does it also make arma and massar happy?

Trac:
Status: assigned to needs_information

hmmmmm happy, only partially ;) (But that is because IMHO they are network bits and thus I would prefer megabits/sec instead)

But, this does solve any ambiguity and thus, it solves the problem. Thus close it if you want.

Trac:
Username: massar

Replying to massar:

hmmmmm happy, only partially ;) (But that is because IMHO they are network bits and thus I would prefer megabits/sec instead)

Personally, I would also be OK with changing it to bits. However, it might lead to confused relay operators who expect bytes because this is also what tor's bandwidth options use. I wonder what arma and karsten think.

There is another option that solves this: report both values (MB/s and MiB/s).

The only thing to change then is the graphs, better to resolve that by having a toggle somewhere that allows one to pick between bytes/s and bits/s as these take quite a bit of screen estate.

Trac:
Username: massar

Personally, I'd prefer bits over bytes, too. But as a developer I prefer whatever is least confusing to users. IMHO that means trying to be consistent with the rest of the Tor world, so count in bytes, not bits.

And making this a user choice, only because developers don't know what's best, seems like a bad idea, too. This is also non-trivial from a coding POV, I'd guess.

I'd say let's close this ticket and save the discussion for a $beverage at 30C3. :)

Personally, I'd prefer bits over bytes, too.

I think that on this thread everybody is favouring bits actually. Thus just showing bits might be the way to go and then make a note that these are bits, not bytes as seen in Tor.

This is also non-trivial from a coding POV, I'd guess.

Should not be too tricky right, just have a toggle ?units=bytes or ?units=bits and default on the one that we want to standardize on.

I'd say let's close this ticket and save the discussion for a $beverage at 30C3. :)

Unfortunately C3's are incompatible with this family thing hence I am not able to attend that.... though CCC-folks are typically behaving like family in their good ways ;)

Trac:
Username: massar

Replying to massar:

Personally, I'd prefer bits over bytes, too.

I think that on this thread everybody is favouring bits actually.

No, my preference for Atlas is bytes for the reason stated in my last comment.

I agree with karsten. Merged and deployed my branch. Thanks, karsten and massar!

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

closed

mentioned in issue #11280 (moved)