Re: [pfSense] Bundling multiple OVPN client connection into one fat pipe...
On 30/3/15 6:58 pm, WebDawg wrote: I have done this, there is overhead involved, and bonding tap connections. I tried this with very latent and slow connections, and I did not have good luck with it I've tried this on even relatively fast (80/20 FTTC) connections, and performance is still a far cry from the combined total of the connections involved. Based on my limited testing it was very much a case of diminishing returns: adding a second connection to the mix increased overall throughput by around 40%, but adding a third connection to that mix only increased things by about 10%. I had similar experiences using PPP bonding, and using Mikrotik's own EoIP tunnels, so pfSense isn't the limiting factor. As I understand it, the problem is usually packets arriving out of order at the far end leading to retransmissions of the apparently 'missing' packets. In my experience, a mix of load balancing and policy-based routing nearly always works better than link aggregation on variable-speed WAN connections. Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Bundling multiple OVPN client connection into one fat pipe...
Thanks for the link. I will try it out and see what i can find... all the connections are stable enough... its just trying to get extra upload capacity... If OVPN has too much overhead, what would be the next option? Thanks. --Tiernan From: List list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org on behalf of WebDawg webd...@gmail.com Sent: 30 March 2015 17:58 To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List Subject: Re: [pfSense] Bundling multiple OVPN client connection into one fat pipe... On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Tiernan OToole tier...@tiernanotoole.iemailto:tier...@tiernanotoole.ie wrote: Morning all.. Stupid(ish) question for you... I have a PFSense box in the house with 3 internet connections (2x240/24 cable modems and a 70ish/20mb VDSL line). I am wondering if i setup 3 OVPN connections to a single (large) Cloud or Dedicated box, can I bundle the 3 connections into a single large connection? Again, might be pie-in-the-sky stuff here, but just a question... Thanks. --Tiernan I have done this, there is overhead involved, and bonding tap connections. I tried this with very latent and slow connections, and I did not have good luck with it, and while my notes are not detailed/organized as well as they should be you can have a look here: http://wiki.hackspherelabs.com/index.php?title=Connection_and_VPN_Bonding I did have some luck with stable connections, but I still had to hurry though it, so no official information. I really think you may have better luck bonding the symmetric connections. There is also different types of bonding you can experiment with. Web... ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Bundling multiple OVPN client connection into one fat pipe...
Grand job. Thanks for the info! --Tiernan From: List list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org on behalf of Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc Sent: 01 April 2015 12:38 To: list@lists.pfsense.org Subject: Re: [pfSense] Bundling multiple OVPN client connection into one fat pipe... On 30/3/15 6:58 pm, WebDawg wrote: I have done this, there is overhead involved, and bonding tap connections. I tried this with very latent and slow connections, and I did not have good luck with it I've tried this on even relatively fast (80/20 FTTC) connections, and performance is still a far cry from the combined total of the connections involved. Based on my limited testing it was very much a case of diminishing returns: adding a second connection to the mix increased overall throughput by around 40%, but adding a third connection to that mix only increased things by about 10%. I had similar experiences using PPP bonding, and using Mikrotik's own EoIP tunnels, so pfSense isn't the limiting factor. As I understand it, the problem is usually packets arriving out of order at the far end leading to retransmissions of the apparently 'missing' packets. In my experience, a mix of load balancing and policy-based routing nearly always works better than link aggregation on variable-speed WAN connections. Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Virus Detected
Am 01.04.2015 um 15:26 schrieb Tim Clarke: Ryan I'd appreciate knowing how you did that? Tim Clarke On 01/04/15 14:19, Ryan Coleman wrote: Reference spoofed headers? My email server automatically tags theses messages and then tosses them into a folder called “virii”. Hi Tim, try amavisd-new (contentfilter which uses spamassassin and clamav) greets juergen ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
