Thus spake Mike Perry (mikeperry@torproject.org):
Thus spake Tim Wilde (twilde@cymru.com):
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.