Michael Berlin:
The logged throughput is also consistent with what I saw with the console traffic monitor "nload" (suggested command line options for nicer units and less refreshes: nload -u K -U G -t 3000). I guess, I saw even higher peaks there. Monitoring everything with "arm" is also nice but far too CPU intensive.
A quick thought - can we pull together data on tor monitoring utilities and then figure out the best bang for armhf CPU buck?
'nload' is good, but doesn't tell me much about *tor's* condition (other than it's probably not dead if there's still traffic flowing). It'd be nice to have some notion of circuits open, circuit creation rate, and tor's memory and CPU usage all on one screen, like 'arm', but lighter.
I agree about 'arm', BTW. I use it for tuning on my x86-based relays, but it's buggy and it is really too heavy for the Pi's CPU. Maybe I should try to see if I can get 'arm' to run under PyPy[1] - I wonder if PyPy is faster on armhf like it can be on x86 and amd64.
[1] http://pypy.org/
Best, -Gordon