[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Jason Humes <jhumes at acs dot on dot ca>
 To:  'alex wetmore' <alex at phred dot org>, "'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 16:19:17 -0500
I'm using the onboard NICs...I have not tried any other ones yet...could
these onboard nics be the problem you think?  Thanks...What sort of speed
are others seeing who run this software?  Thanks.

Jason


-----Original Message-----
From: alex wetmore [mailto:alex at phred dot org] 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:23 PM
To: Jason Humes
Cc: 'm0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch'
Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] PIX vs m0n0wall testing --Speed test results on De
ll!


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
>