<html><head></head><body>It should however not lead to netifd outofmemory, load of 2.6 and the oomkiller berserking around at all... even if its not directly wg fault.<br>
<br>
Yesterday there was no time to test fastd in such a setting,<br>
Similar test show 5 to 15mbs depending on used crypto in the past.<br>
But there we test laptop - 841v9(550mhz?) - broadbanduplink - backboneserver<br>
<br>
If we are motivated, we check fastd in the next days against different cypher algos in exact the same setting, to have a realy good base for comparing software on this fairly week devices<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On July 27, 2016 12:14:12 PM GMT+02:00, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jens Viisauksena <jens@viisauksena.de> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> the small routers run fastd into the backbone.<br /></blockquote><br />Is the performance of wireguard better or worse than fastd?<br />Theoretically wireguard should be much faster, so if it isn't already<br />so in practice, I'd like to optimize a bit.<br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>