We recently relocated and are waiting to get our primary connection
installed, so in the mean time we're on a 3Mb/0.75Mb DSL line. However,
pfSense often shows 6Mb/s coming out of the LAN during a download.
Same problem here.
I am not seeing incorrect traffic graphs in 2.1, and I am using
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Paul Mather p...@gromit.dlib.vt.edu wrote:
If those figures that the hardware producer provided are correct, it
would mean that I could run pfSense 2.1 only on the C204 board, since
pfSense 2.1 is based on FreeBSD 8.3, and the C222 board is only compatible
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote:
There are reports that FreeBSD doesn't support AES-NI very well.
I'm thinking it is either zero gain, or negative gain. On pfSense
2.1-RELEASE (aka FreeBSD 8.3 with OpenSSL 1.0.1e) we see:
% /usr/local/bin/openssl speed
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.comwrote:
What do you think is the reason for your VPN traffic maxing out at 20Mpbs
(I assume that your connection is not the traffic bottle neck, right?),
although your CPUs are almost idle?
I'm fairly sure it is the office
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
CLEARLY it is killer fast for larger blocks.
I just pondered this for a few minutes... I think openssl's summary numbers
are misleading. They give you the time per CPU seconds used. So while the
CPU is not doing the
On 11/7/2013 8:51 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com
mailto:j...@netgate.com wrote:
There are reports that FreeBSD doesn't support AES-NI very well.
I'm thinking it is either zero gain, or negative gain. On pfSense
2.1-RELEASE (aka
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Jim Pingle li...@pingle.org wrote:
Also see the How To Test tab and other data here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AojFUXcbH0ROdE15eHB4dndHTXZYcU1mQm9Dc3V2elEusp=sharing
The sheet could really use some more data, so anyone who has an AES-NI
Hi Vick,
On 2013-11-07 15:40, Vick Khera wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Paul Mather p...@gromit.dlib.vt.edu
mailto:p...@gromit.dlib.vt.edu wrote:
If those figures that the hardware producer provided are
correct, it would mean that I could run pfSense 2.1 only on the
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Jim Pingle li...@pingle.org wrote:
The sheet could really use some more data, so anyone who has an AES-NI
capable system, feel free to run through the tests and help fill out the
sheet. :-)
/usr/bin/openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc -elapsed
The 'numbers' are in
So if I understand you right, even if I use pfSense 2.1 (FreeBSD 8.3)
on a motherboard with a brand new chipset (Intel C222) and CPU
(e.g. Core i3 / Haswell) it should work, eventhough FreeBSD 8.3 is
older than those technologies and might not fully support the chipset
yet (e.g. due to
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.comwrote:
So if I understand you right, even if I use pfSense 2.1 (FreeBSD 8.3) on a
motherboard with a brand new chipset (Intel C222) and CPU (e.g. Core i3 /
Haswell) it should work, eventhough FreeBSD 8.3 is older than those
On 11/7/2013 10:30 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Jim Pingle li...@pingle.org
mailto:li...@pingle.org wrote:
The sheet could really use some more data, so anyone who has an AES-NI
capable system, feel free to run through the tests and help fill out the
So I realized that I am capturing the traffic via SNMP so I looked -- it
shows the same ~200% use on my DMZ vs the WAN it's using. I was a bit
surprised by this because the pfSense RRD graphs do not appear to have the
same discrepancy - they show nearly mirror images for the 2 interfaces.
Mike
Hi there,
2013/11/7 Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.com
Hi Michael,
On 2013-11-06 11:37, Michael Schuh wrote:
i have serval different Systems running,
including an old 3GHz Intel Pentium D-CPU with 2GBytes ECC Memory:
4 Nic, throughput max (so far): 115 MBytes/s at 20k irqs (no polling
14 matches
Mail list logo
