This might be a little irrelevant, but what hardware are you running
your m0n0box on? And was the m0n0wall in there when it was running
It's just, we notice a speed decrease if we put a m0n0box in and its
<1GHz CPU, as it just cant pass the packets fast enough (that's some
things that are written in the manual).
Logsys Support, Leeds
+44 (0)113 384 0400 - ext 411
markj at logsysgroup dot com
From: Nathaniel Irons [mailto:ndi dash l at bumppo dot net]
Sent: 21 June 2006 22:41
To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] our pokey VPN
Chris Buechler (cbuechler at gmail dot com) wrote on 6/21/06, 9:20 AM:
> scp is probably the worst thing I can think of offhand to test network
> throughput. It's terrible at filling any sort of connection. Try
Thanks, that looks like a fine thing to know about. I'll give it a run
this evening when the network's quiet.
> That doesn't sound too bad. VNC is somewhat frustrating on Gb LAN's.
> :) It's absolutely terrible on links with lower bandwidth and higher
The two factors making me think there's something wrong are the fact
it used to be considerably faster, even before we added the second T1,
the large disparity between inbound and outbound throughput, though our
connectivity is symmetrical. There's no disparity to speak of when not
connected through the VPN.
We're generally running VNC in grayscale, which should cut down on a lot
of the bandwidth requirements (they're Mac clients, for what it's
PPTP is putting a hurt on it somewhere, and it's not something I can
replicate with the VPN in my m0n0wall 1.22 setup at home, despite having
much lower outbound bandwidth (768 Kb vs 3 Mb).
This message and any attachments are intended for the stated recipient only and in no
way constitute a binding contractual agreement, order, or commitment by the sender
WHO IS NOT TO BE BOUND BY ANYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN. If you have
received this message in error, please return it to the sender, indicating such and then
delete and destroy all copies in your possession.