Cool! What did your testing rig look like? I suppose the real question is what does the latency/loss profile of the average Tor (bridge) user look like?
On 1/10/20 8:18 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:58:36 -0500 > Matt Corallo <tor-li...@mattcorallo.com> wrote: > >> BBA should handle random packet loss much better than, eg, Cubic. > > Do you mean BBR? https://github.com/google/bbr > > In my experience it does work very well on Tor relays, and also on servers in > general (keeping in mind that these TCP congestion control algorithms only > affect upload, so matter most on hosts which do a lot of uploading, or as in > case of Tor both upload and download). > > The next best in my tests was Illinois: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP-Illinois I've been using it for a long time > before BBR got included in the Linux kernel. Today, in some cases BBR is > better, in other Illionis can be. The latter ramps up a bit slower on new > connections, but appears to be able to achieve higher speeds after that. > > These two are head and shoulders better than all other options available in > the Linux kernel, including the default one (Cubic). And yes, perhaps indeed > this is an area of Tor relay performance tuning that doesn't get enough of the > attention that it deserves. > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
