On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:38:20PM +0200, Dariusz Bączkowski wrote: > I use standard tinc settings and tests look like this: > tinc version 1.0.19 (built Apr 22 2013 21:45:37, protocol 17) > [ 6] local 10.71.0.15 port 37975 connected with 10.71.0.1 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 268 MBytes 224 Mbits/sec > [ 5] local 10.71.0.15 port 5001 connected with 10.71.0.1 port 47211 > [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 246 MBytes 206 Mbits/sec > > Without tinc: > [ 6] local 10.81.0.15 port 39846 connected with 10.81.0.1 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.10 GBytes 943 Mbits/sec > [ 5] local 10.81.0.15 port 5001 connected with 10.81.0.1 port 48362 > [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.10 GBytes 941 Mbits/sec > > This is better then in your case but I also was expecting more. Servers are > connected directly without switch. I suspect that problem is with CPU power > because tincd saturates one core to 100% in such transfers (Intel(R) Xeon(R) > CPU E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz).
The E5-2620 has AES instructions, you could try setting Cipher = aes-128-cbc. I
don't think you'd get more than 300 Mbit/s though, a big part of the CPU power
is actually spent doing SHA1 HMACs.
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
