Re: [tor-relays] Tor relay on Verizon FiOS/FTTH: Advertised Bandwidth capped at ~19.5MiB/s

[Neel Chauhan <neel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Roman,

> But then again the upload will be barely utilized by typical 
> residential
> Internet users.

True.

> Still my recommendation is to test your bandwidth in multiple ways 
> first,
> be it speedtest.net, or (better yet) 
> https://github.com/sivel/speedtest-cli,
> or iperf3 servers, if you can find any near your location.

I am getting 300 Mbps in both directions.

> If tests show that you do get near 300 Mbit both directions, the next 
> step
> would be to just set up two instances of Tor, as I suggested before in 
> your
> thread[1]. Actually fun to see my prediction from back then coming true
> precisely (with regard to getting only 200 Mbit).
>
> [1] 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg15819.html

Being capped at 200 Mbps was because `powerd` wasn't enabled on my 
FreeBSD, and "turbo" frequencies weren't being used. Enabling `powerd` 
means I feel my relay can handle 300 Mbps (and CPU usage dropped because 
the clock speed increased). Previously 10 MB/s (80 Mbps) took 30% of 
CPU, now the same amount of bandwidth takes 20%.

> Running two instances is the universal solution which should improve 
> Tor's
> bandwidth utilization on almost any connection.

I'll look at this.

I feel it's my Linksys WRT1900AC because consumer routers aren't 
designed for the traffic high-bandwidth Tor relays handle, even after 
flashing things like OpenWrt.

Also see: 
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/the-router-rumble-ars-diy-build-faces-better-tests-tougher-competition/

Would running two instances help with a consumer router's limited NAT 
Table?

-Neel

===

https://www.neelc.org/
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays