Have static routes slowed down with pfsense?
-
I have been running pfsense for a couple of years now. I just switched back to my Cisco RV320 router with the latest firmware update to make changes to my rack system. I am seeing snappier web page refresh pages now using the RV320 router. When I tested this 2 years ago pfsense was as fast or faster than my Cisco Rv320 router. Has there been a slow down in static routes on pfsense?
I run a Cisco SG300-28 switch in layer 3 mode with the switch handling all the local VLAN traffic so the only LAN IP on pfsense is an IP with a 30 bit mask. I only have time server loaded. I had traffic shaper loaded but took it off and it made no difference.
I am running the RV320 with the same 30 bit IP address and just switched routers. I am using an Arris SB8200 modem which is fairly recent.
I am using an older Intel server motherboard with 2 built-in Intel GIG ports. It is running an old Intel low voltage Xeon 2.2 with pfsense running it at just under 2000 mhz. Hardware wise nothing has changed other than upgrading pfsense software.
-
"Has there been a slow down in static routes on pfsense?"
Huh??
"I am seeing snappier web page refresh pages now using the RV320 router. "What does that mean exactly? So your rv320 runs a resolver like psfense? Or where you just forwarding with pfsense? Without some actual details of what your seeing that is different its hard to even phantom a guess to what your think your seeing in performance differences.
-
What I am saying is Pfsense 2.3.x now seems to have code bloat for static routing to where there is more lag in pfsense's routing packets. Otherwise Cisco performed a miracle in their new firmware update for their 300mhz CPU in the RV320 router. John you do seem to have problems understanding? Huh??
-
Those are awfully bold proclamations based on feelings.
-
I am surprised with my results from using the RV320 router. I have been using pfsense for a couple of years thinking this is my fastest solution best solution. What I don't know is whether pfsense slowed down or my old Rv320 just got a lot faster.
I asked a nice question trying to figure this out. Until John happened along. Things go down hill fast with John.
-
"I am seeing snappier web page refresh pages now using the RV320 router. "
This is nonsense is my point.. Its based on what? What is the difference? Where is the benchmark? What is it even testing, how much of a page refresh is just loaded from the browser cache, dns should all be cached now, etc.. etc. etc..
Like saying my car seems faster when I use gas from shell vs mobile.. Faster how, in the 1/4 mile, top end? What did it do before, what is it doing now - how did you measure the difference. Saying your seeing snappier is not a measurement of anything.. Maybe it had to do with your rebooted your machine? Maybe when you changed your router you got a different IP from your isp that connected you to a different router that wasn't as loaded.
There are so many variables that could account for your "feeling" that yes its hard to understand.. That you feel its related to routing traffic to a downstream router is just beyond crazy talk.. How would that be different than pfsense just sending it to a device directly connected to it? Not like pfsense is looking through 100s of thousands of routes to know where to send the traffic.. And your cisco router does that faster, etc.
-
Go away John.
-
Go away John.
Sure, blow away comments from one of the most respected forum posters…..
Anyhow, snappier might be related to different DNS servers being used. Try checking the latency between the DNS server configured on your rv320 & the one you use on pfsense
-
I am using Spectrum's default DNS servers on both. I find the local ISP's DNS tends to be faster. Maybe not better but faster.
-
Do you even understand the difference between using a DNS forwarder and a DNS resolver?
I trust you will be staying with the Cisco RV320.
Saying something like "Pfsense 2.3.x now seems to have code bloat for static routing to where there is more lag in pfsense's routing packets" is frankly nonsense especially at levels that can be perceived somewhere like a user looking at a web browser.
What packages are you running?
-
I am using a DNS forwarder. I have not really changed pfsense since the install a couple of years ago.
Yes I now plan to stay with the RV320 until I see a change in pfsense.
As far as the code bloat statement it was just being John with a statement like he would make. I figured it was what he would say if he was in my shoes. I don't really believe it. I would of never said it if John had not responded with his crap. I take it back. Sorry.
I am not running any packages except time server.
-
See you when you come back.
-
"I am not running any packages except time server."
Not even a package – but keep up with the great info.. Its been most enlightening... Think I will run out and get a rv320, since pfsense routing code is so bloated <rolleyes>Where are you workstations that web sites are snappier on now? As I recall when you set up pfsense you had stuff on your transit network and were pointing to your L3 as its gateway from the transit network. A asymmetrical nightmare.. But yeah maybe your rv320 handles that sort of thing better</rolleyes>
-
Go away John.
PS
I reread this thread. My pfsense has a point to point network to my layer 3 switch. There is no asymmetrical network. pfsense forwards all traffic to my layer 3 switch so the L3 switch can route it.
All my web pages now pop faster on the screen when using the RV320 router than when using my pfsense router on an old Xeon server motherboard. Two years ago when I tested pfsense using testing web pages it was as fast or faster than the RV320 which now no longer holds true. So I have moved back to my old Cisco RV320 router. I just unplug one router and plug the other one in and I can tell the difference. I do miss the time server in pfsense.
