[pfSense Support] Relativelly long ping to Pfsense on local direct connection.
Version 0.84.6 If I have connected computer /Celer 2.4Ghz, 256MB RAM, 100Mbps 3COM TX interface/ directly to test computer via crossover cable, or both are in some switch, ping time response is from bellow 1ms to 9-10 ms and abou 700 - 900ms if i go to the menu, for example Traffic shaper. Is it normal? Monowall is more more faster. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 15.9.2005 -- * www.inMail.sk - Vasa emailova adresa na cely zivot ZDARMA * www.EuropskaDomena.sk - bezplatna predregistracia domen .EU * www.php5.sk - novy freehosting s php5 a MySQL, forum o php5
Re: [pfSense Support] Relativelly long ping to Pfsense on local direct connection.
On 9/16/05, Robo.K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Version 0.84.6 If I have connected computer /Celer 2.4Ghz, 256MB RAM, 100Mbps 3COM TX interface/ directly to test computer via crossover cable, or both are in some switch, ping time response is from bellow 1ms to 9-10 ms and abou 700 - 900ms if i go to the menu, for example Traffic shaper. Is it normal? Maybe. Are you transferring data when the ping times increase? More work is upcoming on the shaper to address some of the local lan to local firewall speed issues (it's due to what's being queued). Monowall is more more faster. Bad comparison any more (and you don't explain what you mean anyway). We have some significant technology differences from m0n0 these days. --Bill
RE: [pfSense Support] Relativelly long ping to Pfsense on local direct connection.
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:42 PMTo: support@pfsense.comSubject: Re: [pfSense Support] Relativelly long ping to Pfsense on local direct connection. On 9/16/05, Robo.K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Version 0.84.6 If I have connected computer /Celer 2.4Ghz, 256MB RAM, 100Mbps 3COM TX interface/ directly to test computer via crossover cable, or both are in some switch, ping time response is from bellow 1ms to 9-10 ms and abou 700 - 900ms if i go to the menu, for example Traffic shaper. Is it normal? Maybe. Are you transferring data when the ping times increase? More work is upcoming on the shaper to address some of the local lan to local firewall speed issues (it's due to what's being queued). No, any traffic go through firewall. This is tests on the table, no in production environment. There were tested only machine running a PFSENSE and my laptop connected to this machine via crossover cable. during ping ipadresspf -t i access to whatever menu of PFSENSE, then ping increases to 30-80-200-to 800ms, it depends on which menu in PFSENSE was accessed. Traffic shapper is off. Thats question, if is there some space for optimalization. Monowall is more more faster. Bad comparison any more (and you don't explain what you mean anyway). We have some significant technology differences from m0n0 these days.--Bill Ok, PFSENSE is great project, good job guys. I know that kernel in monowall 4.xx is faster than 5.xx used in PFSENSE. But from this "feature" depends a speed of response drom menus of PFSENSE? no only speed of handling traffic through firewall? Or is there some space to optimalization of graphical interface, for faster responses during configuration PFSENSE? Thats was one question. --* www.inMail.sk - Vasa emailova adresa na cely zivot ZDARMA* www.SlovakNET.sk - profesionalny webhosting, domena .SK ZADARMO* www.EuropskaDomena.sk - bezplatna predregistracia domen .EU --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 15.9.2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 15.9.2005 -- * www.inMail.sk - Vasa emailova adresa na cely zivot ZDARMA * www.EuropskaDomena.sk - bezplatna predregistracia domen .EU * www.inshop.sk - virtualna obchodna galeria s viac ako 230 obchodmi!
Re: [pfSense Support] Relativelly long ping to Pfsense on local direct connection.
On 9/16/05, Robo.K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know that kernel in monowall 4.xx is faster than 5.xx used in PFSENSE. But from this For the archives. pfSense uses FreeBSD 6, not FreeBSD 5. --Bill
Re: [pfSense Support] Relativelly long ping to Pfsense on local direct connection.
ping is about the must ugliest speed test I have ever heard of. use ipperf. there are discussions of this in our archive. And for the record freebsd DOES do ICMP rate limiting. Scott On 9/16/05, Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/16/05, Robo.K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I know that kernel in monowall 4.xx is faster than 5.xx used in PFSENSE. > But from this > > For the archives. pfSense uses FreeBSD 6, not FreeBSD 5. > > --Bill > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
