On 23.03.21 10:38, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > On 23/03/2021 03:37, Todd Fleisher wrote: >>> On Mar 22, 2021, at 13:28, Andrew Gallagher <andr...@andrewg.com >>> <mailto:andr...@andrewg.com>> wrote: >>> >>> 1pgpkeys.uk <http://pgpkeys.uk>[@] >>> 2sks.pod01.fleetstreetops.com <http://sks.pod01.fleetstreetops.com>[@] >>> 3sks.pod02.fleetstreetops.com <http://sks.pod02.fleetstreetops.com>[@] > > BTW it has just happened again: > > 1 pgpkeys.eu[@] > 2 pgpkeys.uk[@] > 3 sks.pod02.fleetstreetops.com[@] > >>> Looking at the cached metadata it appears that when the spider ran, >>> pod02.fleetstreetops nodes was unavailable, as was pgpkeys.co.uk
> Apologies, I didn't mean to cast doubt on the reliability of your node, > but rather on that of the spider. It does not maintain much of a > historical record, and so depends on a single measurement per node each yes, that's the case with sks.infcs.de as well. That server sometimes handles a reconcil task that it does not return the stat-page in time. Per log, the server is running the whole time, but the spider cannot retrieve the stat page all the time, because of the sequential design of SKS server. Kind regards, -- Steffen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
