Netgate 1100 vs 2100 for wireguard?
-
I think should work, but thought would ask.....
I have a client that wants to access a Fuel system's network hardware at two remote locations. The locations use Xplornet Satellite Internet. I think respective WG tunnels from each Fuel station back to their main pfSense router in office will work. Just need to know what the performance on the 1100 is for wireguard. I think this will just be polling small amounts of data and maybe a RDP session to a PC there at most. Should I just make them go with the 2100 instead?
-
@brians said in Netgate 1100 vs 2100 for wireguard?:
The locations use Xplornet Satellite Internet
I suspect regardless of the units (Xplornet only has 10x1 and 25x1 service) you will have struggles with latency over the microwave systems.
-
@rcoleman-netgate Ya I think 1100 probably would work, was concerned about the hardware support of 1100 and using packages since it is an older model vs. 2100. I recommend customer purchase just one unit and test first.
-
@brians I believe the CPU on both is the same (Ryan?) and it's just the 2100 has separate interfaces vs in the 1100 a switch with VLANs to separate the interfaces.
Remote Desktop does not use much bandwidth at all, as long as they're not trying to watch video remotely.
-
@steveits said in Netgate 1100 vs 2100 for wireguard?:
I believe the CPU on both is the same (Ryan?)
As I understand it the primary difference is the WAN is a dedicated NIC, and the LAN ports on the 2100 all share a 2500mbps NIC interface -- the rest of the systems are fairly identical... except you can add an mSATA drive to a 2100.
-
@brians said in Netgate 1100 vs 2100 for wireguard?:
was concerned about the hardware support of 1100 and using packages since it is an older model vs. 2100. I recommend customer purchase just one unit and test first.
They're not really much older than each other. Software will be supported on these units long after they've reached end of sale (we still support devices sold in 2014, for example).
-
@rcoleman-netgate Curious why the specs are a bit slower on L3 forwarding and firewall if they have the same CPU, is the because of less RAM in 1100?
I will go with 2100 because of the integrated switch... I have learned that they may need to have more than one thing plugged in and it simplifies things rather than an extra switch.
-
@brians All three ports on the 1100 share the same 1Gbps ethernet IC.
The 2100 has a switch, too, but that's 2.5Gbps and the WAN is not part of it.
-
@rcoleman-netgate Oh I remember that now how it shares one internal interface for everything.