From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 18 18:03:09 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1597B106568B; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:03:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zbeeble@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f209.google.com (mail-ew0-f209.google.com [209.85.219.209]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C168FC3D; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so296878ewy.36 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:03:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=s0TGJjVsxz6rlnOOgwIKTukJLddAbKOYZsNaNpgZbdU=; b=Z/sp760d4yy3FrLQS1+CZSgcQk3S7tujCAh6jkUC+5ObOnXgMzVlouFfUtRE1znMYk OLHFEP0rP4gzXQyXygiysyeeFAJYvJbbZRMClEYmbERIFJAy3xwQIxnB3RT++6h0jfVV 6p3yYdzpmdDPZTaGL5Uj+ByOCfkYNkL0wbyKU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=EL38b5D/ymoj6n994EaCs/dlDYj3oi2afBzeRtCuQuKdUdbz356T0B5qgYMZ0dnoyZ ha1FAwnKeUFthneEtyqA/NmoAN/6mAXYTgqwHYHTaRXQ1/C8Ooal1jphOMt9HGIMPj7U IKwinCSUQsq4KO9ROnHYxO4jsk2/Tywmox4ww= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.88.209 with SMTP id a59mr1301012wef.50.1250616765863; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4A8484E4.6090504@uffner.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:32:45 -0400 Message-ID: <5f67a8c40908181032x5b23de27jc01dc1147281a1a6@mail.gmail.com> From: Zaphod Beeblebrox To: Ian FREISLICH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: pf@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: packet forwarding/firewall performance question X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:03:09 -0000 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Tom Uffner wrote: > > > > > i'm hoping a few people will give me estimates on what kind of > > > throughput i should theoretically expect before i provide any actual > > > test data. also, any suggestions on tuning would be welcome. > I havn't tried 800Mhz hardware, but I have extensive experience with the 266Mhz c3 in the WRAP board for comparison. The 266 Mhz part has no heatsink, but I've found it to be flakey in "hot" environments if a heatsink is not rigged to it. So... the WRAP boards have 3 "sis" interfaces. With various combinations of usage, one can expect 30 megabit of average sized packets if they kernel is doing the passing. This makes the board an adequate wireless bridge. If userland is doing the packet passing (pppd vs. mpd as a DSL router), I've had trouble getting more than about 10 megabit through the unit. This makes it an adequate DSL router but poor for aggregating multiple links.