Bug #13582

Monitoring bridge

Added by groente 2017-08-04 22:20:00 . Updated 2017-08-06 11:53:32 .

Status:
Duplicate
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
groente
Category:
Infrastructure
Target version:
Start date:
2017-08-04
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Sysadmin
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

Tor wasn’t running on bridge for weeks and nothing came up in the monitoring…


Subtasks


Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #13581: Update AppArmor profile for tor/obfs4proxy Resolved 2017-08-04
Related to Tails - Bug #11858: Monitor if isobuilders systems are running fine Resolved 2016-10-03

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-05 12:35:22

  • blocks Feature #13233: Core work 2017Q3: Sysadmin (Maintain our already existing services) added

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-05 12:36:00

  • related to #13256 added

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-05 12:36:06

  • related to deleted (#13256)

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-05 12:36:58

  • related to Feature #13581: Update AppArmor profile for tor/obfs4proxy added

#5 Updated by bertagaz 2017-08-06 10:38:21

  • Category set to Infrastructure
  • Assignee set to groente

groente wrote:
> Tor wasn’t running on bridge for weeks and nothing came up in the monitoring…

When we debug that together, we noticed that the last Tor upgrade failed with dpkg errors (probably Tor failing to restart due to Feature #13581). IIRC it might not be the first time we had this situation, I even wonder if Feature #11523 wasn’t created a bit because of that.

OTOH, it reminds me a bit of Bug #11858. If we had the kind of systemd check mentioned there, we would have been noticed. So maybe that’s the kind of check we should focus on getting, on all systems? That’d mean reject this ticket and re-purpose Bug #11858.

#6 Updated by groente 2017-08-06 11:32:48

  • related to Bug #11858: Monitor if isobuilders systems are running fine added

#7 Updated by groente 2017-08-06 11:35:58

  • Status changed from New to Duplicate

Fixing Bug #11858 will fix this aswell.

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-06 11:53:32

> OTOH, it reminds me a bit of Bug #11858. If we had the kind of systemd check mentioned there, we would have been noticed. So maybe that’s the kind of check we should focus on getting, on all systems? That’d mean reject this ticket and re-purpose Bug #11858.

Good idea!

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-24 09:43:03

  • blocked by deleted (Feature #13233: Core work 2017Q3: Sysadmin (Maintain our already existing services))