Em 01-09-2015 14:18, Quartz escreveu: > It's not actually a small office, that's just the best analogy I could > think of.
My home server many times ends up having more traffic to deal with than my small office. So an analogy not always plays in our favour. > Well... that's kind of the same thing though, isn't it? > Hypothetically, if I have a single core with a speed of "1" vs say a > dual core where each core has a speed of ".75", I'm getting the > impression that the dual will end up being likely slower, given that > pf is currently single threaded and the other stuff isn't accounting > for much overhead. Even though the total computational power of the > dual core would be 50% more, that extra power is effectively unusable. Not exactly. In your case, you are using only a dhcp server and a dns server, along with pf. I'm confident that in most cases you will perform better having the single core at 100% speed than two cores at 75% speed. But don't expect consistent performance through peaks and heavy loads. Again, it all depends on your use case. As other people mentioned, if you are that concerned about pf performance (you shouldn't be), them run only pf, with no other daemons or process with it. > Again, it's not actually an office, and it won't need to scale, at > least not by much. If you expect consistent traffic, it perhaps would be better to actually measure it, and only then decide. pflow(4) and nfsen come to mind. symon is another good candidate. With that, you can deploy only the amount of hardware needed. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini
