V1.12 - issue with TOR client

[lollapalooza]

I used to use V1.10 until yesterday, and today I've updated to V1.12.

I have not preserved settings during the update, so I had to re-enter all the settings manually.

Everything works fine, except Tor Anonymization Client.

As soon as I set that to "Enabled, Toggled by each host", CPU load average jumps to 4.00 - 5.00 and more.

Router becomes pratically unusable, and web GUI is obviously extremely slow.

Tried to reboot, but problem was still there.

Router is WNDR3700V2, and I did not have any problem with V1.10.0.

Any suggestion?

[RomanHK]

Yes, performance requirements in OpenWrt are increasing and so are requirements in Gargoyle. Everything is aging and there are no exceptions in electronics so: if you want speed on the old hardware, you have to sacrifice security and settle for a lower version of Gargoyle. Conversely, if you want to go with the times, try to buy a new router, which will be sufficient power resources.

[lollapalooza]

Yes, of course ... this is clear, I understand that my router is a few years old.

Anyway, my WNDR3700V2 usually rests pretty stable at CPU load values between 0.00 and 0.02 (1/5/15 minutes), also with OpenVPN client enabled and connected.

I would say that under "normal workload" CPU has a lot of free time

And that was pretty the same with previous 1.10 version.

Now it sounds very weird to me that I have this huge increase from 0.02 to 9 and more (it's >450 times more), just by selecting "Enabled, Toggled by each host", and with 0 clients enabled.

Is this huge increase in CPU load justified from 1.10 to 1.12?

Maybe in V1.12 there's a big change in how Tor works?
Maybe there's a bug?

See screenshot - top command:

[lollapalooza]

Ok ... I guess this silence means that you’re 100% sure that this is due to obsolete hardware

[Lantis]

It personally means that I'm pretty sure, but I haven't had time to look either.
I've never used TOR in my life so it's also not easy for me to test.

Rest assured it is actually on my to do list, along with the other 48 million things I need to do.

[CBx86]

Hey guys!

I have one WNDR4300 - Not same; Netgear too.

If i enable TOR, the router looks stable, dont drop, or fail, or restart, yes some jump on CPU use.

But navigation get rly slow, the 'guilty' (in my case) is TOR network (lot of 'jumps'). Dont know for someone TOR works fast enough...

My point of view:
I prefer be tracked (from google and my ISP) than stay slow like that, and dont want my data jumping from unknown server-unknown server-unknown server-unknown server...

[ispyisail]

Just checked with my C7 and it works fine (everything fast)



load is heavy though..

[lollapalooza]

Well ... 0.56 is heavy, but it's still 1/16 of the load I get.
Next week I'll switch back to 1.10 and I'll check the CPU load.

@CBx86: it can be quite normal that browsing is slow.
After all your traffic is passing through many nodes (and you don't know how fast they are and how many people is using the same node) and it's encrypted.

[lollapalooza]

Ok, I tried with 1.10... here's a screenshot.
15 minutes uptime, TOR enabled at system level, 1 host enabled and streaming from YouTube.



I have also re-installed V1.12, and then enabled TOR stright away. Result: CPU load is higher (about 0.8 / 0.9 as an average), but still accetable; and the GUI is still responsive.

Then I started to set my preferences (exactly the same settings I had on V.1.10):

- Changed LAN IP address range to 192.168.0.1 with subnet /24
- Set 4 static IPs on DHCP
- Enabled UPnP & NAT-PMP
- Installed AdBlock Plugin
- Installed Graphical WiFi scanning support for Gargoyle (Full)
- Changed TimeZone to GMT+1
- Changed Time Format to dd.mm.yyyy / 24 hours
- Changed router's hostname

Then I tried to enable Tor...
Guess what? Gui became unresponsive, and CPU load jumper to nig numbers (>4).

I had to kill the Tor process via SSH and then disable on the GUI.

I think that there's something wrong somewhere... there should be a bug.

[Lantis]

The only one of those that might interfere is ad block, and it's not compatible with tor anyway.
So can you please try your test again minus ad block.