Perhaps the pipe size causes degradations, I seem to recall getting better results on benchmarks without pipes. Den 1 okt 2012 18:07 skrev "Otto Moerbeek" <o...@drijf.net>:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 11:20:06AM -0400, Jim Miller wrote: > > > I just reran the test again. I still receive about 600Mbps using iPerf > > however using > > > > client > > # dd if=/dev/zero bs=1000 count=1000000 | nc -v 172.16.2.2 12345 > > > > server > > # nc -v -l 12345 > /dev/null > > > > I get numbers around 350Mbps. I tend to think iPerf is more reliable in > > this situation. > > Any ideas why the tests vary so much? > > I suspect nc does less efficient buffering. > > -Otto > > > -Jim > > > > On 9/28/12 9:18 PM, Ryan McBride wrote: > > > 600Mbps seems about right, I tested a pair of E5649-based boxes to > > > 550Mbps last year (with aes-128-gcm): > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=134033767126930 > > > > > > You'll probably get slightly more than 600 with with multiple TCP > > > streams. > > > > > > Assuming PF was enabled for your test (the default configuration), the > > > performance should be about the same with a proper ruleset. Traffic for > > > existing states won't hit the ruleset at all. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:39:14PM -0400, Jim Miller wrote: > > >> Yes. Let me double check everything again on Monday. Keep in mind > that > > >> all devices had 1Gb ethernet interfaces and everything was directly > > >> cabled. No pf rules either. w/o ipsec I could get 900mbps through > the > > >> openbsd boxes. > > >> > > >> Now you've got me thinking I need to recheck everything. > > >> > > >> -Jim > > >> > > >> On 9/28/12 5:19 PM, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On 28.9.2012 22:09, Jim Miller wrote: > > >>>> So using another Mac w/ 1Gb ethernet adapter to a Linux box w/ 1Gb > eth I > > >>>> was able to achieve approx. 600Mbps performance through the test > setup > > >>>> (via iperf and my dd method). > > >>>> > > >>> 600Mbps via ipsec between two Intel E31220 ?
