Re: firewall throughput number
From: Frank S (fsexton@qwest.net)Date: 02/15/02
- Next message: James Donovan: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Previous message: James Donovan: "Re: Think twice before using proxies-ComCast Cable to Stop Recording Users"
- In reply to: Lawrence Chow: "firewall throughput number"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Frank S" <fsexton@qwest.net> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:10:29 GMT
You're not going to get more throughput than your NIC allows. They show you
the unrestricted potential throughput to make you realize that the firewall
program itself will not slow you down, because it is capable of much more
than the NIC anyway. Oddly enough, firewall performance, although often
questioned, is almost never a factor to worry about. Almost any firewall on
any platform will perform just fine, with the bottleneck being the NIC.
Depends on the size of the network obviously. But firewall performance is a
much overdone concern IMHO.
-Frank
"Lawrence Chow" <wongaying@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc5bb40c.0202141500.39b43701@posting.google.com...
> I need help to understand the firewall performance quoted on
> the vendor's data***.
>
> Why will they quote throughput of more than 100 Mbps
> on a device with 100 Mbps Ethernet ports?
> Shouldn't the maximum be 100 Mbps?
>
> Should I intepret that as full duplex throughput
> so the actual throughput is half the value?
>
> How about those devices that come with multiple
> 10/100 Mbps ports and quoted the throughput as 400+ Mbps?
>
> How do they measure it?
>
> thanks for your help,
>
> Lawrence
>
- Next message: James Donovan: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Previous message: James Donovan: "Re: Think twice before using proxies-ComCast Cable to Stop Recording Users"
- In reply to: Lawrence Chow: "firewall throughput number"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]