On 03/27/2014 03:25 PM, Helder Ribeiro wrote: > Hi Qingping, thanks for the help! Answer below: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Qingping Hou <dave2008...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you decided to work on profiling hidden service, I would suggest you >> take a >> look at chutney[1] and shadow[2]. Torperf is not under active maintenance >> anymore and it can be easily replaced by chutney. >> > > Thanks for the pointers. I'm still not very clear on what each of shadow, > chutney, experimentor, torperf or even oprofile should be used for. I'm > guessing chutney/oprofile (maybe toperf, originally, too?) are more useful > for profiling processes, with less control over what happens in the > network, and shadow/experimentor are more useful for network-level > simulation. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > >
Correct. >> >> A fully automated hidden service profiling tool will be very handy. As the >> community is currently designing next generation hidden service protocol, >> such >> tool will help developers evaluate different designs and implementations. >> > > Great! Do you know what kinds of things are most useful to measure first? > Is it more useful at this point to: > 1. measure time spent on functions within a process, to see if there's > anything taking up too much time, for example, at the hidden service's OP > during the handshake; or > 2. simulate load on a hidden service and see how request response time > climbs with number of clients, etc.? > I would say 2 is better. I have done some initial profiling on low load HS and found that time spent on functions (i.e. computation) is negligible compared the time spent on creating circuits and cell transmitting. _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev