[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  John <strgout at unixjunkie dot com>
 To:  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 16:02:18 -0600
from http://$firewall/exec.php
netstat -in

check for input/output errors. Could be speed/duplexing problem,
but then again most of the time i see that you max out at
about 16kbytes/sec.

from the same url you can 
ifconfig $nic media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex

that should force said nics to 100full just to see if that might be
part of the problem.

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 04:19:17PM -0500, Jason Humes wrote:
> 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
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch