[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  alex wetmore <alex at phred dot org>
 To:  Jason Humes <jhumes at acs dot on dot ca>
 Cc:  "'m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch'" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] PIX vs m0n0wall testing --Speed test results on De ll!
 Date:  Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:22:50 -0800 (PST)
What ethernet cards are you using?  Have you tried different ones?

alex

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jason Humes wrote:

> Hi
> We just have this box as a testing platform...and no, traffic shaping is
> turned off, the box is not doing any NAT (advanced nat is turned on to
> disable nat), firewall rules are permit any any on wan and lan...any idea
> why its soooo slow?  Thanks.
>
> jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alex wetmore [mailto:alex at phred dot org]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:07 AM
> To: Jason Humes
> Cc: 'm0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch'
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] PIX vs m0n0wall testing --Speed test results on De
> ll!
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jason Humes wrote:
>> I've done some testing of the m0n0wall on a Dell 3.2Ghz with 512MB RAM
>> and here are my results (not too impressive, maybe some memory buffer
>> tuning is in order?)
>
> Wow, that is the most overkill box I've heard of yet for m0n0wall.
>
>> 1518 byte frames - 33Mb/s
>
> That is about 25% slower than my WRAP board.
>
> What ethernet cards are being used?  Do you have traffic shaping turned on
> for these two interfaces?
>
> alex
>