On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 12:40 -0500, Ronald L. Rosson Jr. wrote:
>
> Just recalled something while reading thru iperf's (http://
> dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/) web page, and that is I forgot to
> mention that this system (pfsense) has traffic shaping enabled.
>
> Not sure if that is being tri
On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Ronald L. Rosson Jr. wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Now there could be an actual performance problem, but the speed of
backup software is useless in determining whether that's the case.
Like I suggested, try iperf or netperf between
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Now there could be an actual performance problem, but the speed of
backup software is useless in determining whether that's the case.
Like I suggested, try iperf or netperf between VLAN's and see what
you get. If you're only getting like
On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Ronald L. Rosson Jr. wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Now there could be an actual performance problem, but the speed of
backup software is useless in determining whether that's the case.
Like I suggested, try iperf or netperf betwee
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Now there could be an actual performance problem, but the speed of
backup software is useless in determining whether that's the case.
Like I suggested, try iperf or netperf between VLAN's and see what
you get. If you're only getting like
RB wrote:
I, on the other hand, am still interested in how things work without
the pfSense box in-between.
I'm more interested in how a good network performance measurement looks.
Backup software performance is extremely complex, there are numerous
potential bottlenecks. Processor, RAM, dis
On 6/29/07, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It sounds like you had a problem to begin with and just made it worse by
adding latency (though very minimal). Your original "200 MB/min" is only
25 Mbps when on the same VLAN, which is pathetic.
Regardless of higher-level bottlenecks, the c
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Ronald L. Rosson Jr. wrote:
The backup thru-put when the devices where in the same VLAN were
roughly 200/MB/min. With the current configuration the thru-put
has dropped to 21MB/min.
It sounds like you had a problem to begin with and just
Ronald L. Rosson Jr. wrote:
The backup thru-put when the devices where in the same VLAN were
roughly 200/MB/min. With the current configuration the thru-put has
dropped to 21MB/min.
It sounds like you had a problem to begin with and just made it worse by
adding latency (though very minimal).
low.
It seems the switch is the problem? Can you detail its brand.
From: Ronald L. Rosson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: sexta-feira, 29 de junho de 2007 10:37
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Thruput
I have a pfsense box running 1-2-BETA-1 (built 5/26/2007 @ 16:27
Your throughput is very low.
It seems the switch is the problem? Can you detail its brand.
From: Ronald L. Rosson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: sexta-feira, 29 de junho de 2007 10:37
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Thruput
I have a pfsense box running 1-2
I have a pfsense box running 1-2-BETA-1 (built 5/26/2007 @ 16:27:46
EDT) with the following CPU/Memory combination (from dmesg):
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz (3000.13-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf65 Stepping = 5
Features=0xbfebfbff,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLU
12 matches
Mail list logo
