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@lists.torproject.org/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-face...
Would running two instances help with a consumer router's limited NAT Table?
-Neel
===