From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 17 21:38:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6584AD7 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E8A42FB8 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ty20so1918901lab.39 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:37:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pmvyi/++keujX4RIEpyzWxRkMiHnqdhQi8aV47ymY4A=; b=LrvKYNHjbhxtdsf+9ngG8rS1fWaeX5tL5l+7WV1vcGsVN4ctBetRlnK8DnNT5WLMDl 8o3Z9N6yyFdxVFgRCv2b+bUEfn0JTxU3RkCOq+Uk9Ur0AeqU7WGUEhxlHpsExBYTEKkQ pp1Vc4g5ZKDbxFUDRJ3iIIu3+0QS/aiu9lAfdnlZdN3Cvh2yxC8t3J9NHFjpb/ZAAvF5 XV+9H7HWrkchwNnQ5BtgwXdfM31mtRy4548gW4Qe3kQVbJpRYMsF7dVcuV/gLeaJaXPZ wHhn0CoNYXPjiPrIZVhlsc7izIsr2u4QwOzhn4ub54xnmXcfYeppMQkw4jF/iiZTYxvn ZwDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.10.168 with SMTP id j8mr20123249lab.37.1403041079191; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.137.69 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:37:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140613121732.GA61092@behemoth> <20140615090845.GB42502@server.rulingia.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:37:59 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Suggestions for low-power gigE firewall? From: Tom Evans To: Andreas Nilsson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD stable , Chris Nehren , Peter Jeremy X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:38:01 -0000 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > Without knowing the exact cabling arrangement, have you considered buying a > small switch that understands vlan? Then you could do some trickery with > that to have your server elsewhere (with just one ethernet cable)? Networking is not really my thing, so I'm going to read up some more on that - it sounds promising. I've probably got my thinking wrong on this, but would the result of putting lan and wan traffic down a single cable limit the upload and download to a cumulative 1 Gbit/s from a LAN client's viewpoint? > We haven't done any testing of the different NAT solutions available so I > can't give any specific numbers there. But I don't think it will help > throughput, especially old school natd in userspace. > > A colleague of mine also has 1Gbit/s home, and he hade to tweak the settings > and buy a decent intel card to get 900+Mbit/s on his old dell entry level > desktop. I would use pf to do the nat; it's what I used with ADSL - perhaps that is even slower, but fine for 8 Mbit. I've got plenty of cheap intel (em) cards, they've worked quite well as clients so far without any tuning on 10. I don't use torrents or things like that, but do download large files from time to time. The quickest I've clocked one of them downloaded is 87 MB/s, which I guess is roughly 700 Mbit/s, but I've no idea of the overheads. Certainly with iperf between each BSD machine on the LAN I can get a reading of 900+ Mbit/s. Cheers Tom