On Oct 15, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Ulrik Lunddahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Will A SMB without L3 capable switches, that needs routing between 3-4 local > subnets (LAN, SERVERS, WIRELESS/GUEST, OTHER/DMZ) as close to wirespeed as > possible, be happy with a C2758. ? > > Very. > > Is a dual socket Xeon a bit faster? Yes. > Does your application need that speed? Unlikely. > > Really depends on what you mean by "wirespeed". > > The case I always seem to run into is Clients on the LAN, moving a bulk > amount of data to/from NAS devices on the SERVER or DMZ subnet, that is > typically backup data or data that are somewhat being replicated. > > I work a lot with companies dealing in media, and RAW images and/or video is > very huge, and devices to store it on is dead cheap. > > I also work a lot with virtual environments; backup and replication of > virtual machines also generate huge files, which need to be transferred as > fast as possible. > > So having a hardware router that can both handle internet access from the > many LAN clients, and hours of forwarding at interface speed between a few > other interfaces is what I would like. > > Let’s say that we have a Intel Rangeley Atom 8-core C2758 box with 5 > interfaces. (WAN, LAN, SERVERS, OPT1, OPT2) > > Will it be able to handle forwarding the packets generated from copying > approx. 1 TB of files from LAN to SERVERS and OPT1 to OPT2, and services 50 > computers + 50 phones with heavy internet usage. > > NAT only, very few rules. ? > > I ask because I have no idea how powerful the new Atom’s is. > My first thoughts are: What is the threat profile you are facing in your organization? Why do you need a firewall between your users and your NAS? I, personally, would not put pfSense in that duty. If firewalling was not necessary, I’d use a layer 3 switch. And with only 100 devices plus a few servers, I’d wonder why layer 2 wouldn’t suffice. _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
