On 25/10/13 12:02 am, Thinker Rix wrote:
Ok, I see. Does this change with a router that has a Gigabit-NIC to
connect with pfSense, or isn't that the bottle neck?
I've never encountered even a 100Mbps NIC being a wireless bottleneck at
2.4Ghz. The limitation is effective throughput through the wireless
radios. Granted, you can get well over 100Mbps using licensed
frequencies, but in the unlicensed 2.4 and 5Ghz spectrum you are
unlikely to get 100Mbps (you might just manage it in a rural area with
no other nearby spectrum users).
I will use a 802.11n router with 3 antennas that is able to operate
simultaneously in the 2,4 GHz and 5 GHz band, so it advertises "up to
900Mbps" (i.e. 450 Mbps in the 2,4 + 450 Mbps in the 5 GHz band) - I do
not know if it is able to use 80 MHz channels, but I read at wikipedia
that this is only available for the new 802.11ac generation and not for
the 11n that I own. Is that correct?
I suppose theoretically with 3 radios in the 2.4Ghz spectrum and 3 in
the 5Ghz spectrum (so 6 radios total) you could potentially push higher
speeds (possibly ~160Mbps total across both spectra).
Could I tweak an 11n to use 80 MHz channels, e.g. by using an
alternative firmware on the router such as dd-wrt?
I think with 3 radios, you could potentially use 60Mhz across 3
channels, though you will need to be very careful (especially at 5Ghz)
to make sure the frequencies you're using are legal - the 5Ghz spectrum
is complicated - bands A B and C have different regulations and
allowable power levels.
Ok, but which of the 3 CPUs that I have at my disposal would you chose
so to meet my requirements?
Well, if you've all 3 at your disposal and nothing else to do with them,
then go with the fastest (2.93Ghz quad core). It is, however, probably
an overkill (not that that's always a bad thing).
is FTP via dual WAN possible in the mean
time or is there still the restriction of using only one uplink
You should be able to use both, though assuming your 2 VDSLs have
separate external IPs, you'll need to perform something like DNS load
balancing on the A/AAAA records to ensure external connections are
spread amongst both connections.
So my question is: Ok, 2x Gigabit != 2 Gigabit. But do you think that it
will yet help to contribute to my objective to add a second channel to a
bond so that there will be 2x Gigabit = 1 Gigabit for the user
transferring bulk traffic plus additional 0,2-0,4 Gigabit for additional
VoIP, browsing, etc., or is it senseless to do that this way?
QoS often falls down because the speed of the connection you want to
perform QoS over fluctuates (often *DSL WAN links). On a link where you
can guarantee the speed will be constant, this probably isn't an issue.
I'd probably perform QoS at the switch level (up-priority your VoIP
VLAN, for example): this takes load away from pfSense and gives the
switch something to do.
Taking a step back for a moment, it looks like your biggest limitation
is going to be your upstream WAN bandwidth long before your LAN/DMZ
bandwidth becomes an issue.
PCIe 3ware 9650SE RAID Controller with 2 SATA disks RAID0 or 3 SATA
disks RAID5
Is pfSense immune against sudden power losses, system crashes, media
surface failures, e.g. because it has read-only file systems or
something similar, so that adding RAID, parity, BBU, etc. is never
needed?
No, disk failure is a risk in any system.
However, I am pointing out that there's little point in spending large
sums on redundant disks, NICs, etc. when you're relying on a consumer
desktop motherboard as a single point of failure. Much better to spec 2
lower cost systems and run them in CARP (or even warm spare, if you
aren't comfortable with CARP yet).
As I have a RAID controller and
disks on stock I could use them without any cost
If they're going to cost you nothing, then I'd go with a pair in RAID1
(not RAID0). RAID5 is pointless in this context: P(array failure) with 3
disks in RAID5 is no better than a pair in RAID1.
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
