Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Chris Buechler
Greg Hennessy wrote: That's ~20 megabits/sec, not bad for an IP-120 given its horsepower Not for m0n0wall/FreeBSD 4.x. That box should be about the same speed as a Soekris 4801 or WRAP, either of which will hit ~40-45 Mbps. If this were pfsense/FreeBSD 6.x, I would say ~20 Mbps is low,

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
On 3/14/06, Greg Hennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Quite a bit. I ran out of Avalanche/Reflector capacity at > > 750Mbit, but the OpenBSD box I pointed the firehose at, was > > only hitting about 30% CPU load at the time. > > Interesting, what nics were in the box ? HP DL380G3 w/ Broa

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Greg Hennessy
HPAQ do a gig-e 4 port switched card called the NC150T which does a similar job. > Sorry, the link is in german but you should get the facts: > http://www.level-one.de/products3.php?sklop=14&id=520056 > it's a NIC with integrated 5 port switch. If you use a > soekris 4801 you could add such a c

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Holger Bauer
everything depends on needs...and probably the price. the switchcard I have in my router was only 30 euros (not ebay or something, regular price). we all can only give suggestions. I didn't say your option is bad either but I guess more expensive. Holger > -Original Message- > From: Ji

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Jim Thompson
Understood, but a 1GHz c3 (on the box I showed) is a bit more CPU than the 233/266MHz Geode on the Soekris & WRAP boards. You'll probably get something approaching similar performance with either solution. I don't know if you've got the software written to control VLAN framing, packet filt

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Holger Bauer
If you bridge NICs and create a switch this way your throughput will be limited by the bus and the CPU. If you use a switchcard like I suggested the switch will take care of the networktraffic between these ports. I get 90 mbit/s with this card between the switchports though the firewall itself

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Jim Thompson
Holger Bauer wrote: Sorry, the link is in german but you should get the facts: http://www.level-one.de/products3.php?sklop=14&id=520056 it's a NIC with integrated 5 port switch. If you use a soekris 4801 you could add such a card to the PCI slot. I use a similiar card with one of my routers (

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Holger Bauer
Sorry, the link is in german but you should get the facts: http://www.level-one.de/products3.php?sklop=14&id=520056 it's a NIC with integrated 5 port switch. If you use a soekris 4801 you could add such a card to the PCI slot. I use a similiar card with one of my routers ( http://routerdesign.co

RE: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Greg Hennessy
> > Quite a bit. I ran out of Avalanche/Reflector capacity at > 750Mbit, but the OpenBSD box I pointed the firehose at, was > only hitting about 30% CPU load at the time. Interesting, what nics were in the box ? > I expect I'd > see better performance out of FreeBSD (w/ or w/out Andre's

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Jim Thompson
Gil Freund wrote: Hi, I had a look at the Checkpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] device and I am looking for a similar platform for pfsense. I currently use Wraps, but I am looking for something with more interfaces (5 or 6, of which 4 are a lan switch) and one or (preferably) two MiniPCI. We're con

[pfSense-discussion] Embedded hardware

2006-03-14 Thread Gil Freund
Hi, I had a look at the Checkpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] device and I am looking for a similar platform for pfsense. I currently use Wraps, but I am looking for something with more interfaces (5 or 6, of which 4 are a lan switch) and one or (preferably) two MiniPCI. Soekris has a similar model but th

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
On 3/14/06, Rainer Duffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am 14.03.2006 um 20:52 schrieb Greg Hennessy: > > > > > > > I'd love to get the chance to throw an Avalanche at a decent system > > running > > PF to see what it really can stand upto. Quite a bit. I ran out of Avalanche/Reflector capacity

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
On 3/14/06, Chun Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the fw traffic graph, I see 30 megabits per second on the 120 (>95% cpu) > and 75 megabits peak on the athlon platform (45% cpu). This certainly suggests that CPU on the athlon is not your limiting factor. > to be honest I was expecting a lot

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Jim Thompson
Chun Wong wrote: guys, 2.2MBs, 2.2 megabytes per second (120) 7MBs, 7 megabytes pers second (athlon) Yes. These are, respectively: 17.6Mbps and 56Mbps (your values * 8 to translate to 'megabits per second') thats from smart ftp transfering >3GB size files. On the fw traffic graph, I see

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Rainer Duffner
Am 14.03.2006 um 20:52 schrieb Greg Hennessy: I'd love to get the chance to throw an Avalanche at a decent system running PF to see what it really can stand upto. Andre Oppermann is working on that. http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/ But the results won't show-up until 7.0 is released, w

RE: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Greg Hennessy
> Hi, > I have two fw platforms, mono 1.21 running on a Nokia120 and > pfsense1.0beta2 running on an AMD athlon 900. > > I can get 2.2MBs on the 120 platform, at >96% cpu usage. That's ~20 megabits/sec, not bad for an IP-120 given its horsepower, What sort of traffic ? >On > the athlon, 32b

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Chun Wong
guys, 2.2MBs, 2.2 megabytes per second (120) 7MBs, 7 megabytes pers second (athlon) thats from smart ftp transfering >3GB size files. On the fw traffic graph, I see 30 megabits per second on the 120 (>95% cpu) and 75 megabits peak on the athlon platform (45% cpu). to be honest I was expecting a

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Tommaso Di Donato
mmhhh, not sure if I understood well what you are measuring.. I'm doing some tests on a EPIA PD6000 (so I think much lower than your hardware): http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/mainboards/mini_itx/epia_pd/ I can reach an average throughput of about 92-97 MB/s, with unencrypted traffic. I am testi

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
On 3/14/06, Jim Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chun Wong wrote: > > >Hi, > >I have two fw platforms, mono 1.21 running on a Nokia120 and pfsense1.0beta2 > >running on an AMD athlon 900. > > > >I can get 2.2MBs on the 120 platform, at >96% cpu usage. On the athlon, > >32bit, 33Mhz pci, I can

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Jim Thompson
Chun Wong wrote: Hi, I have two fw platforms, mono 1.21 running on a Nokia120 and pfsense1.0beta2 running on an AMD athlon 900. I can get 2.2MBs on the 120 platform, at >96% cpu usage. On the athlon, 32bit, 33Mhz pci, I can get 7MBs using Intel PRO 1000MT 64 bit PCI cards. My question is what

[pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Chun Wong
Hi, I have two fw platforms, mono 1.21 running on a Nokia120 and pfsense1.0beta2 running on an AMD athlon 900. I can get 2.2MBs on the 120 platform, at >96% cpu usage. On the athlon, 32bit, 33Mhz pci, I can get 7MBs using Intel PRO 1000MT 64 bit PCI cards. My question is what speed/type cpu do I

[pfSense-discussion] PPTP on every ifc?

2006-03-14 Thread John Wells
Guys, I posted this earlier to the help list, but think it's more fitting for discussion. My apologies up front for the double post. -- I've been working through my first pfsense install, and have been extremely impressed with all design decisions...until this morning. My configuration is pretty