On 08/06/18 16:57, Jan Just Keijser wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/06/18 13:55, Gena Makhomed wrote: >> On 08.06.2018 14:02, Jan Just Keijser wrote: >> >>> try running "iperf" instead of "iperf3" - I've found that iperf3 sucks in >>> more than one way... >> >> Jan, you are right!!! Thank you very much!!! >> >> iperf always show normal network throughput, near 88.7 Mbits/sec >> >> 100 Mbits/sec - 88.7 Mbits/sec == 11.3 Mbits/sec. >> >> As I understand, 11.3 Mbits/sec - is overhead, >> added by OpenVPN protocol and TCP/IP protocol. >> >> And I can't make this overhead lower without reducing encryption power? >> > nope, your "raw" network throughput will also not be 100 Mbps ... but a VPN > adds a few percent overhead, so getting 88.7 Mbps over a 100 Mbps line is > close to perfect. > >>> also, what is the latency of your connection? what are the "raw" vs "vpn" >>> ping times? >> >> Latency is low: raw 8.073 ms, vpn 8.272 ms. >> > 8 ms is pretty good ... that won't cause any bandwidth problems. Agreed ... but that's probably with smaller ICMP packets (56 bytes or so) ... does that change if going higher than 1300 (the --fragment, in the config) or 1500? .... both outside and inside the tunnel.
And would be nice to see min/avg/max and stddev of the latency over a longer period (say 5-10 minutes). Low values and only a small variation would easily indicate the physical link is good enough. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth OpenVPN Inc
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
