This is a complicated question for a number of reasons. First, it is very hard to define what torture is. Second, those of us who do not typically interrogate people do not know how effective various techniques (which may or may not be torture) are. Finally, the answer to this surely depends to some extent on the circumstances.
To me, the more urgent the need for information, the more acceptable it is to torture (again, the term torture is very hard to define). If we have good reason to believe that some person has information that could save lives and which must be extracted quickly, harsher tactics are more warranted than in situations where the information is not urgently needed.
Another consideration is the degree of torture that is being used. If we are talking about actual severe physical abuse (burning people, breaking their limbs, things like that), I would only consider this acceptable in the most extreme circumstances.
Overall, then, I cannot offer a hard and fast answer. I can only say that the more urgent the need for information, the more likely it is that harsh tactics are acceptable. This means that there is some sort of sliding scale where harsher means are more acceptable as the need becomes more immediate and the number of lives that might be saved increases.