Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:49:16 -0800 From: "Gayn Winters" <gaynw@bristolsystems.com> To: "'Ted Mittelstaedt'" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "'Winelfred G. Pasamba'" <winelfredpasamba@gmail.com>, "'Yance Kowara'" <yance_kowara@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD router two DSL connections Message-ID: <043901c5fffc$c610fa10$6501a8c0@workdog> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNAEACFDAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org=20 > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Ted=20 > Mittelstaedt >=20 > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Winelfred G. > >Pasamba > >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:26 AM > >To: Yance Kowara > >Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >Subject: Re: FreeBSD router two DSL connections > > > >i use pfSense (www.pfsense.com) > > > Sigh. >=20 > THIS IS NOT LOAD BALANCING PLEASE QUIT BEING SLOPPY WITH YOUR > NETWORKING TERMS!!!! >=20 > I refer you to the pfsense website itself: > http://faq.pfsense.org/index.php?sid=3D13525&lang=3Den&action=3Dartikel&c= at=3D6& id=3D18&artlang=3Den > "Load balancing is on per connection basis, not a bandwidth basis. All > packets in a given flow will go over only one link." > In other words, they are redefining the term "load balancing" into > something that is not understood by any previously accepted definition > of load balancing, so that people like you can think your getting > something for nothing. > Once more - FTP to a remote site with your dual DSL links. Copy > a FreeBSD ISO file to there. Watch as the upload speed IS NO FASTER > THAN ONE OF THE LINKS. > Ted I just looked at the pfsense site, and for an Internet Caf=E9, it looks promising. Two DSL lines to different ISP's does give a small amount of redundancy. Whether you use two routers or pfsense, you get some sort of "load sharing" but not "load balancing." A more appropriate performance test for an Internet Caf=E9 would be: Take a dozen PC's each to transfer a FreeBSD 6.0R ISO file from a dozen different mirror sites. Start them at the same time and see how long the all of the transfers take. =20 You can test one DSL connection at N kbps and two DSL connections both at N kbps. You'll undoubtedly see the effect of "load sharing" if the dozen PC's are more or less evenly divided over the two DSL lines. The redundancy isn't great, and you will pay for it. Namely, two N kbps connections will cost you more than one 2N connection. If you ran my benchmark on a 2N connection you might actually see an improvement over two N kbps connections due to to its inherent load balancing. In any case, with a single (or a small number) of users (Ted's benchmark test) you would definitely see an improvement over two N kbps connections. Now the question: is a faster AND cheaper 2N connection a better setup than two N kbps connections for our fabled Internet Caf=E9? =20 I'd personally go with the 2N connection. Almost all the time it would be better. Most large ISPs, for a little more money of course, will give you a faster response time on repairs. The ISP might even provide a bank of modems and you could implement multilink PPP as your backup. Regarding a combination of DSL and cable, that would be where pfsense may shine. This combo would definitely give a little better redundancy than two DSL connections to two ISP because the cable comes in to you building differently than the DSL/phone lines. A backhoe would have less chance of taking both out. Honestly, I still think a 2N connection would be better. -gayn Bristol Systems Inc. 714/532-6776 www.bristolsystems.com=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?043901c5fffc$c610fa10$6501a8c0>