3 ms·
That should toast OpenVPN in term of performance. I never managed to get more than 5MB/s on OpenVPN on windows, I understand precisely because it wasn't impleme
by cm2187 5y ago
That should toast OpenVPN in term of performance. I never managed to get more than 5MB/s on OpenVPN on windows, I understand precisely because it wasn't implemented in kernel. I ended up running a pfsense gateway in a VM.
- neilalexander 5y agoIt also doesn’t help that the OpenVPN TAP driver on Windows is utterly abysmal. Wintun (also born out of the Wireguard project) performs significantly better.
- gruez 5y ago>I never managed to get more than 5MB/s on OpenVPN on windows wtf? I can easily get 200 Mb/s on windows, on a commercial VPN provider.
- vbezhenar 5y agoI have the same experience. I control both the OpenVPN server and client. Windows client have abysmal speed. Linux box which is located in the same apartments, can easily saturate the 100 Mb/s link. In the end I switched to IPsec which solved Windows performance issues. These times wireguard seems like a perfect solution, because IPsec configuration with various clients takes too much time.
- cm2187 5y agoI switched to IPsec too, which works great between windows machines, until I tried to make IPSec work between a windows and linux machine! But now all the procols are encrypted (SMB3, RDP, etc). Combine that with an IP while list auto applied to each machine's firewall and I don't think you really need a VPN anymore between your own machines. I only use VPNs for torrents now.
- hansel_der 5y agothere were/are some performance pitfalls with openvpn: * socket-buffer size too small (fixed now) * default fragmentation handling is sub-optimal (needs mssfix) * sheduling priority of the openvpn process too low