On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:48, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> On May 18, 2006, at 12:39 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > On 2006-05-18 11:03, bc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I want to run 6.1_RELEASE with Packet Filter(PF) configured as
> >> a gateway using 2 identical 10/100 nics, on an old 450mhz
> >> pentium with 256 meg ram and an 8 gig HD.
> >>
> >> In general, should I expect any speed performance issues with
> >> internet access base on the processor, ram and bus speeds of
> >> the MB?  Would the PF config cause any speed performance
> >> deficiencies?
> >>
> >> I had same setup as above but with IPF firewall and received
> >> complaints about surfing speed so I put them back on a Linksys
> >> router firewall.
> >
> > We'd have to see the ruleset to be able to reply in an informed
> > manner.  I have seen firewalls doing both filtering & NAT on a
> > system, with almost no overhead at all though.
> >
> > This top output:
> >
> >     http://keramida.serverhive.com/pixelshow-top.txt
> >
> > shows that a FreeBSD 5.X system with 256 MB of physical memory is
> > happily filtering the traffic and doing NAT for more than 100
> > users, while still being 97% idle.
>
> I would think it is more than CPU speed.  The speed of the PCI bus
> and the speed and efficiency of the two network cards being used
> and their drivers may have a bit to do with latency ("surfing
> speed")...
>
> Just a guess
> Chad
>

I had a dual pentium 100 with 96 megs of RAM that did ipf/ipnat for a 
10mbps connection with a couple dozen users.  CPU usage was usually 
around 1% and load averages .03 or so.  Latency and throughput were 
both acceptable.

The only reason I replaced the box was it was a single point of 
failure and the hardware was old enough that I was afraid there would 
be some sort of show stopper breakdown.

-- 
Thanks,

Josh Paetzel
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to