[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Anastasija Bosiha" <anastasija dot bosiha at gmail dot com>
 To:  "Paul Taylor" <PaulTaylor at winn dash dixie dot com>, "Jeroen Visser" <monowall at forty dash two dot nl>, <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall throughput is awful.
 Date:  Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:07:40 +0300
I get throughput about 33Mbps with 1.2b7 on PentiumIII, 700 MHz and Realtek
NIC. I send data from one PC to another with m0n0wall between.

Anastasija

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Taylor" <PaulTaylor at winn dash dixie dot com>
To: "Jeroen Visser" <monowall at forty dash two dot nl>; <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall throughput is awful.


>
> Jeroen,
>
> I have also noticed that throughput isn't as good as I would expect.
> With the latest 1.2 beta on my net4801, I'm only seeing 18 Mbps from
> interface to interface...  I measured this by watching the traffic graph
as
> I performed a copy of some large files this past weekend.
>
> I believe a similar test that I used with version 1.11 I got about 33 Mbps
> on the same hardware..  I don't know how much the rules have changed since
> then, but the way I understand ipf, it doesn't check every single packet
> against each rule, but just the first packet for a conversation.  Since
> subsequent packets are part of an existing allowed conversation, I believe
> they are allowed through without going down the entire rule list.
(Someone
> please correct me if I'm wrong on this)
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Visser [mailto:monowall at forty dash two dot nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:52 AM
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall throughput is awful.
>
> Hi List,
>
> To be blunt, here's my problem.
> I've got two m0n0walls connected to eachother with a crosscable and use
them
> to
> connect different subnets.
>
> The througput on the first one, subnet to subnet over two interfaces in
the
> same
> machine is little more than 40 mbps (iperf tested), which is what I would
> expect,
> I think, since the m0n0wall firewall rules have to be parsed.
>
> The weird thing now is when I run an iperf test on two subnets, through
TWO
> m0n0walls I only get a measly 8 mbit out of it. The machines are both new,
> out of
> the box, with Intel Pro 100 cards. 1500 Mhz and 512 MB of ram. Should be
> enough.
> Tried to connect with other spare Intel cards which are in the machine, to
> no
> avail.... So a nic faillure seems unlikely. PCI bus speed might be a
> problem, I've
> not tried that.
>
> Another test on the second m0n0wall from nic to nic on the same machine,
> give's me
> a thoughput of 11 mbit... strangely low.
>
> I changed the loader.rc on the CF card from which these machines boot and
> added a
> set kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768. 512 MB ram would give me enough spare
memory
> for
> this..... to no avail again....
>
> Has anyone had any experience with such issues ?
> Can anyone give me a hint to try something, preferrably without booting
;-),
> to
> boost the performance, before I call my hardware supllier and return the
> second
> machine.... ?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Jeroen Visser.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>