WiFi is slower with pfsense vs Untangle. Any thoughts?
-
Running iperf on pfSense directly is not meaningless it just has to be used with the understanding that the absolute value is never going to be as high as a dedicated server would reach.
But for this sort of test where you are looking only to validate the link or for relative results I'd argue it's fine.It's pretty clear that the available bandwidth when connecting across wifi is less than a wired connection. And that at least 1G 'wire speed' is available at the switch.
A better question here might be how are you testing this using Untangle if it isn't to iperf running on Untangle?
-
I had guessed it was comparing “through untangled” vs “to pfsense” but it was just a guess.
-
@patch @Gertjan @stephenw10
Thanks, everyone. I think I get it. At least I was able to confirm that my router and switch can deliver what the speed they're supposed to deliver, sans pfsense overhead.I found a spare m.2 drive and will install pfsense this weekend and just swap drives if I can't get the performance I want.
-
@bokolobs
'Normally'
the drive used doesn't determine the throughput of a router.
A drive is used to boot from, to get the OS online. All hardware drivers etc will be in memory, and afterwards the disk drive might be used to log some lines ones in a while.If you want to use pfSense packages like bandwidthd / ntopng / pfBlockerNG / suricata / etc, a fast(er) storage medium becomes important.
A device like this already does half a Gbit/sec - and AFAIK, there is no speed demon disk in such a device
-
@gertjan
Thanks! I meant swapping it with the drive with the Untangle installation if I can’t configure the pfSense installation to my liking. As suggested by @stephenw10, this might be easier than reinstalling and restoring from backup while I’m still doing all these tests and optimization.
