Re: performance tuning...

["Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:23:29PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:

: From the tor-spec.txt (documenting the descriptor line):
:
:   "bandwidth" bandwidth-avg bandwidth-burst bandwidth-observed
:      Estimated bandwidth for this router, in bytes per second.  The
:      "average" bandwidth is the volume per second that the OR is willing
:      to sustain over long periods; the "burst" bandwidth is the volume
:      that the OR is willing to sustain in very short intervals.  The
:      "observed" value is an estimate of the capacity this server can
:      handle.  The server remembers the max bandwidth sustained output
:      over any ten second period in the past day, and another sustained
:      input.  The "observed" value is the lesser of these two numbers.
:
:Check out
:http://wiki.noreply.org/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#LimitBandwidth
:for a bit more info.

:Let us know what you find. The 0.1.0.3-rc release has some more
:cpu improvements, but the main pain comes from crypto, and that is
:proportional to the number of clients who are asking you to handle a
:circuit for them. In any case, you won't be filling up all 100Mb yet --
:see the lower graph of http://new.noreply.org/tor-running-routers/
:
:Also check out
:http://wiki.noreply.org/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#SMP

I am running  0.1.0.3-rc and it has greatly decreased CPU utilization,
though it doesn't seem to have increased "bandwidth-observed", this in
retrospect is why I brought up the question.  My thought being perhaps there
was something in the TCP stack that was bottle necking.

In the barest terms my CPU runs about 50% idle and my pipes aren't nearly
full seems like it could be doing more work. Perhaps I've done all I can do.
I already have NumCpus set to 2, perhaps increasing it will help...

Thanks,
-Jon