Netextender 8.6.265 notes11/14/2022 ![]() ![]() not expecting to even see the full 50Mbps with packet over-head, but expected better than this. No I meant 2.8MB/s or roughly just over 22Mbps. ![]() Ironically your latency is roughly twice as high as my primary test location of ~25-35ms and you see much better SMB performance than I do. I would just like to have one solution to cover all our needs. Our office users get by just fine on the VPN client, and most of our engineers are on a rotating furlough schedule, so we are making due with our current configuration. At this point I can't do that, as it won't make a bit of difference. My Hardware based alternative using IPsec is able to achieve almost twice the SMB performance and easily max out the 50Mb upload of our office on general TCP testing.Īgain, at our connections best, its still going to be slow and pale in comparison to LAN, but if the SSL-VPN was capping our internet connection, I could go back and say we need faster internet. We only have a 200/50Mb connection to begin with, so not expecting to even see the full 50Mbps with packet over-head, but expected better than this. No I meant 2.8MB/s or roughly just over 22Mbps - That has been the maximum SMB performance we can get, even during off-shift hours where the internet is hardly used in the office. It would be worth nothing if you and OP are on the same firmware there could be a bug. Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0Īpproximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 74ms, Maximum = 76ms, Average =Įxternal from Remote User to LAN folder share (with SSL VPN connected):ĭo you mean Mbps, not MB/s? If you're only getting 2.8 Mbps, then there is a problem. Ping Results (from remote user connected to SSL VPN):C:\Users\>ping fileserver Up AND Down speed of the remote user ISP: Ping 10 ms, Download 700 Mbps, Upload 35 Mbps Up AND Down speed of the onsite ISP: Ping 1 ms,ĭownload 800 Mbps, Upload 900 Mbps (at the desktop level) If you happen to find a method to speed up the native SSL-VPN client, please provide the details, as all my testing has been a bust.įirmware Version:SonicOS Enhanced 6.5.4.5-53n Now I feel they are just spoiled by local LAN connectivity and have skewed expectations when working remotely. Users in this configuration have much shorter wait times. We were able to cap our 50Mb upload available at our Main office. Configured correctly, you can connect one behind any standard home router (or DHCP supporting internet connection) to make a secure connection that is much faster than the SSLVPN can provide. It's been a real help for most of our designers.įor extreme cases we already had a Mikrotik RB100x4 in house and for roughly $60 you can get 5port Hex units that support hardware encryption. I know other design software suites offer different variations to this. This takes less time than opening it directly over the VPN. They can pull the entire assembly local (still can take awhile) but that way they can work on it local and check it back in when done. ![]() Solidworks/CAD - If your Org uses PDM for Solidworks, leverage the file checkout features it has. I have left it at poor SMB performance over a connection of more than a couple ms. I have used a couple of different methods to work around or eliminate the SSL-VPN performance issues. Solidworks assemblies would take anywhere from 5-30minutes to open depending on size. No matter the internet speed the employee had at their end. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but we have a nsa2650 here, using SSLVPN we are unable to break 2.8MB/s via SMB. Any suggestions or ideas are appreciated. Yikes! Going to do some testing to get a baseline. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |