[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Tim Nelson <tnelson at rockbochs dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] SMB over IPSEC...
 Date:  Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:07:07 -0500 (CDT)
I just can't believe that with all the improvements and new developments in the network world that
someone hasn't come up with a broadband technology that can be run over tin cans and string yet
still have 1-2ms of latency!!!

Seriously though... I can see the latency being a huge issue here. I just did a constant ping and
the latency is varying between 90ms  and 240ms... ouch. I'll continue to do some tweaking. Thank you
all for the great ideas and assistance!

Tim Nelson
Systems/Network Support
Rockbochs Inc.
(218)727-4332 x105

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Buechler" <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
To: "monowall" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:06:24 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] SMB over IPSEC...

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Tim Nelson <tnelson at rockbochs dot com> wrote:
> Actual bandwidth between sites is very good at about 1mbit and latency is around 100ms. FTP
traffic through the IPSEC tunnel hits at least 700k or so...
>

It's all about latency, bandwidth is largely irrelevant as long as you
have broadband on both ends. 100ms is high.

Try dropping MTU on client and server machines and see what happens.
That might improve things, but you will never see good SMB performance
at 100 ms latency. At least what I would consider good, which would be
near LAN performance.

-Chris

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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