See the following link, particularly the "stress test" section:
http://www.data.com/lab_tests/ntfirewalls.html
MSP 2.0 hit 62.7 Mbits/sec with NAT enabled, and Heatseeker Pro hit 96.34
Mbits/sec without NAT. This is probably far and above many people's needs.
It's certainly above mine, considering our company's external link is 512KB
:-). At what speed would your external link have to be in order for a
firewall capable of 62.7 Mbits/s to become a bottleneck?
Interestingly enough, the Raptor and Checkpoint solutions' performance was
among the lowest, but I'm sure most offices can live with 34 Mbits/s and
higher throughput quite easily. I tend to agree with Data Communications'
stance that Firewall performance is secondary to security or management.
Regards,
Brian Steele
-----Original Message-----
From: HOFMAN, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, 12 January, 1999 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: OS Platform for firewall (...the answer is..)
>James has a point, although no doubt someone will point out that memory is
>cheap etc. :-)
>
>One thing that I have noticed is that the UNIX flavours tend to have better
>throughput on similar powerd boxes, eg. 60-85Mbits/s Whereas NT often
peaks
>out at 25-35Mbits/s. So I have tended to use UNIX when high volume traffic
>is expected and NT when the site is an NT site, or only has NT experience
>available.
>
>No doubt NT will catch up, but it isn't quite there yet from the throughput
>point of view.
>
>Mark.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
