No new servers in a while?

[b2431521 6]

When I first started using Airvpn, total bandwidth (as displayed at the top of the page) was around 50xxxMbit/s from memory. Now it's currently up at 68xxx Mbit/s.
Are there any plans for a commensurate increase in the number of servers; perhaps even the addition of some more countries in high b/w areas (Europe)?

I know the likely response will be that the existing servers still have some headroom, but as utilisation increases, performance does suffer.

[OpenSourcerer 1450]

44 minutes ago, b2431521 said:

I know the likely response will be that the existing servers still have some headroom, but as utilisation increases, performance does suffer.

Does it? Can you give some examples which are not based on subjective perception?

When I quickly look at the current bandwidth utilization, none of the countries exceed 50% of utilization, most don't even go beyond 25. So from the numbers alone I don't see any incentive to add new servers anywhere.

[b2431521 6]

5 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

Does it? Can you give some examples which are not based on subjective perception?

I don't understand? A server/connection/whatever offers less performance for each connection, the more connections there are - that's fact, not subjective...

[OpenSourcerer 1450]

1 hour ago, b2431521 said:

I don't understand? A server/connection/whatever offers less performance for each connection, the more connections there are - that's fact, not subjective...

No, this is a subjective perception, I believe driven by thinking of computers as living beings. Living beings break down more quickly the more weight they carry. Computers don't. If there is headroom and more load is pouring in on what's already there, things are programmed to use that headroom.
If a Gigabit link is negotiated on an interface, it means that interface can send and receive data over that link with one Gigabit a second, meaning, it can send/receive 1,000,000,000 electical states (= "zeros and ones" = bits) in a second, simultaneously in both directions. It will not renegotiate something slower just because the link is only used partly. If only 500 Mbit/s are used, it means that one half of a second is "occupied" transmitting/receiving those bits. The other half is silence. If something else comes along, parts of that silence is used. So if the load was 90+% on that network interface, then I'd agree with you that congestion situations can occur and some packets might get delayed… but the AirVPN team would have opened three new servers before such a situation becomes the norm.
The same thing happens with CPU load for example: If only 50% of the CPU processing cycles are used, the CPU will not break down if more load pours in. It will use cycles which would otherwise be idle to process commands. You might get occasional glimpses of diminished responsiveness at 90+% CPU utilization, but never a hard breakdown as you describe.
Same thing with HDD/SSD/USB/M.2/CD-ROM drives, by the way.

It's slightly more complicated in the real world, of course, because resource management is driven by algorithms wherever you look. Everything you do with your computer is governed by some algorithm, no matter which OS you use (if you're interested: CPU process schedulers, disk input/output schedulers, TCP congestion control, to name a few) but that's the general idea.

Of course it's best to use a server with as little bandwidth utilization as possible because an absence of cases where congestion control must step in is inevitably a blessing. What I want to point out is that it doesn't mean a horrible experience if you use a server with 30% of its bandwidth in active usage. Remember, it's a Gigabit link…