Thus spake Mike Perry (mikeperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > Thus spake Tim Wilde (twilde@xxxxxxxxx): > > > > I try to keep everything I do documented on that wiki. All these > > > servers run four instances of Tor each (one per core) and traffic > > > is accounted for in total. Also, keep in mind that vnstat counts > > > both incoming and outgoing traffic, so 700Mbps in vnstat are really > > > only 375 per direction. > > > > Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification, I was thinking those numbers > > were for single Tor instances. That makes me feel a lot better then, > > especially with the combination of directions. :) I'm pushing around > > 600Mb/sec total in+out on my piece of bit iron so I'm much closer to > > the same ballpark than I thought. Thanks, and thanks again for your > > documentation! > > Moritz, Andy, Tim, and others with Gbit+ Guards and/or Exits: > > Could you guys ensure you are not running into TCP socket exhaustion > on any of your relays? It is a possibility, esp for Guard+Exits with > gobs of CPU and gobs of throughput. > > I am curious if we will need to do this or not: > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4709 It looks like Moritz is seeing some evidence of TCP sourceport exhaustion in his Tor logs: "[warn] Error binding network socket: Address already in use". He's also monitoring TCP connection counts on each IP interface: netstat -ntap | grep $INTERFACE_IP | wc -l It appears that right now, he's at only about ~10k connections per IP, and not experiencing any log lines at the moment. It is possible this is a transient condition caused by overly-agressive scrapers and/or torrenters who flock to the node for a short while and then move on? Reports on the recent appearance or prevelance increase of that or other warns from others will be helpful. -- Mike Perry
Attachment:
pgppvKsxB3hPW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays