Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Testing PFSense?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    14 Posts 5 Posters 3.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • K
      kejianshi
      last edited by

      Yep.

      common-sense-superpower.jpg
      common-sense-superpower.jpg_thumb

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • johnpozJ
        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
        last edited by

        ^ heheheeh exactly!!

        I figured if someone is going to ask a question like this in the first place..  Prob lacking in super powers ;)

        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • I
          ilaurens
          last edited by

          Indeed that is a good idea, I know about iperf but never tried it with 3 pfsense instances (client -> server, felt not right :P), the reason why I wanted to know this was because I wanted to experiment with 10gbit NIC's but seems like I have to put that on hold because I do not have enough of them yet :S

          Thanks for the idea :)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • K
            kejianshi
            last edited by

            Seems like you can do it just fine if all 3 points can carry the bandwidth.  Only 1 necessarily HAS to be pfsense.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stephenw10S
              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
              last edited by

              If you use something other than a pfSense/FreeBSD box make sure you using comparable settings. A Windows port I was using had a different default packet size which screwed up my results until I noticed.

              Steve

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • johnpozJ
                johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                last edited by

                yeah I think on windows it defaults to 8kbytes – really small!!

                So you need to use the -w option most likely on both the client and server.  Also what version of iperf your using can change some stuff.. For windows there is the old 1.7, 2.02 and 2.05 and have seen compiled with cygwin some 3's

                So just understand what versions your running and what options might have changed, etc.  Make sure you use the right window size or you will be disappointed in the performance ;)

                An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • K
                  kejianshi
                  last edited by

                  Yeah - The reason I initially said use 3 pfsense boxes is because, in theory if you use 3 identical builds then the throughput test will definitely be true.  If you are not someone who has lots of equipment to work with, this might be hard.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    Devising some form of simple bandwidth test that can be carried out with the minimum of equipment would be a very good idea, IMHO. One of the most common questions in the hardware section of the forum is 'I have a WAN of X Mbps, what hardware will firewall that?' or 'What bandwidth can I expect from X hardware?'. The current hardware recommendations on the pfSense.org page are outdated. It would be very nice to have a user generated table of bandwidth vs hardware.
                    The test would have to be well defined and easily carried out. Using iperf is not a bad staring point as long as the values are fixed. Even if the 'hardware' column was only CPU and NICs it would be very useful. Thoughts?

                    Steve

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • K
                      kejianshi
                      last edited by

                      Well - If it were just a matter of cpu speed, you could use simple Non-Linear regression and curve fitting to predict it, but its not because all CPUs are not equal at all clock speeds nor are boards or memory.  I think the only way to do it would be to benchmark various CPUs with various boards and NICs and then post the results to a DB much the same way the cpu and video card benchmark sites do.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stephenw10S
                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                        last edited by

                        Exactly. I'm sure the dev team have thought about doing this before (the last time I suggested it perhaps!). There would be no point in starting anything without some sort of official sanction I think.

                        Steve

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.