Sorry, I have to correct myself, as I spread some misinformation in my previous email.
The hard limit of 2 relays per IPv4 was bumped up to 8. There were also several typos, as I was at work when writing that e-mail, i.e. under time pressure. I hope I could help you anyway. Best Regards, -GH On Friday, February 7th, 2025 at 12:22 PM, George Hartley via tor-relays <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there "usetor", > > I am going to answer a few of your questions: > > > 1. "If a full IPv4 /24 Class C was available to host Tor relays, what are > some optimal ways to allocate bandwidth, CPU cores and RAM to maximize > utilization of the IPv4 /24 for Tor?" > > With 2 IPv4 addreses per relay as a hard limit, the biggest bottleneck you > will encounter is that most of Tor's code-base is singe-threaded, except for > maybe onionskin decryption and compression of files. > > I used to host a Tor exit node on a single IPv4 address, which was running > inside an encrypted ArchLinux VM through QEMU/KVM on our colocated dedicated > server. > > Here is the config I used for libvirtd: https://pastebin.com/cxSicEnN > > I had the relay bandwidth limit using the following config: > > > BandwidthRate 75 MBits > > BandwidthBurst 100 MBits > > > > After starting up the relay for the first second, and waiting 2 weeks for the > relay to get some traffic, it was using up 75-90 MBit/s constantly, or around > 30TB per month. > > To get the maximum out of my machine, I used the following config options: > > > NumCPUs 4 > > HardwareAccel 1 > > > > The second option made use of my CPU's AES instruction, which should be > available in all Intel and AMD server CPU's made since the year 2011. > > Even when doing 100MBit/s, the use of hardware accelerated AES only made the > Tor process use ~30%, on an Intel Xeon E5-2620 running at only 2 GHz.. > without the bandwidth restrictions, I imagine it could have done 350MBit/s > easily. > > > 2) If a full 10 Gbps connection was available for Tor relays, how many CPU > cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses would be required to saturate the 10 Gbps > connection?" > > Another user already calculated how much it would take to saturate 2GBit/s, > so you can take it from there. > > However I disagree with the memory limit of 512MB, is okay in my opinion but > not less.. you can achieve that by using the following config option: > > > MaxMemInQueues 1024MB > > 3) Same for a 20 Gbps connection, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses > are required to saturate? > > Look at my answer for question 2. > > I also suggest you to use the seccomp syscall sandboxing options built into > Tor: > > > Sandbox 1 > > > Also, remember one very important thing: Make sure that your relays are > located in a host, datacenter and country that is not already saturated with > Tor nodes. > > > At last, thank you for running Tor nodes! > > All the best, > -GH > > On Monday, February 3rd, 2025 at 5:00 PM, usetor.wtf via tor-relays > [email protected] wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Looking for guidance around running high performance Tor relays on Ubuntu. > > > > Few questions: > > 1) If a full IPv4 /24 Class C was available to host Tor relays, what are > > some optimal ways to allocate bandwidth, CPU cores and RAM to maximize > > utilization of the IPv4 /24 for Tor? > > > > 2) If a full 10 Gbps connection was available for Tor relays, how many CPU > > cores, RAM and IPv4 addresses would be required to saturate the 10 Gbps > > connection? > > > > 3) Same for a 20 Gbps connection, how many CPU cores, RAM and IPv4 > > addresses are required to saturate? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
publickey - [email protected] - 0xAEE8E00F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
