ok i feel better now and i think i got a better handle on this then before. its a fast box with plenty of memory, intel pro gig eth cards (em), about 350k in the state table at the moment, with fairly small ruleset, intelligenty would probably be up for debate! I would like to think so. Thanks.
On 5/31/07, Ryan McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:43:56PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Were nearing the 8300pps mark so I was worried? But should I be? > > You're fine. The 8300pps mark is not an upper limit, it's the best case > for a full 100Mbit ethernet link (ignoring jumbograms). > > > Becuase the majority of my packets are smaller then 64B, shouldn't I > > be able to pass a lot more packets then 8300pps? > > Yes, depending on limitations of your firewall hardware, pf ruleset, > size of state table, etc. > > > If all my packets were 64K or smaller, shouldn't that allow me to be > > able to handle closer to 200k packets/sec before hitting my bandwidth > > limit? > > For this you will need a reasonably fast box with good gigabit ethernet > cards (em or sk), and an intelligently written ruleset. It seems like > you're a long way away from 200k pps, though.
