Thread Info
  • State Suggested Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 16 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 22323 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Free XG Firewall (Home) install - SPEEDTEST.NET results are poor

Justin Bed

Hi,

I'm looking at trying to limit my daughter's (10 years old) internet access. She keeps falling down the YouTube rabbit hole. My current home router limits all access or none. There is no timed limit.  I'd like to have Facetime, iMessage, email and generally google/edu access most of the time and streaming limited to some of the time.  So I started looking at XG Firewall for Home.

Three house members with a total of 20 devices. (Laptops, Pis, Desktop, iPhones etc..)

My question at the moment is more around speed or the lack of when using it.

I've completed a fresh install of XG onto a VMWare Workstation (12.5) running on a Windows 7 host GB single ethernet card. I've given the VM 4 vCPU and 6GB of RAM. Virtual HDD is 20GB on an SSD. 

The VM has two virtual network cards one assigned to LAN the other to WAN.

With this Windows 7 workstation using the standard router gateway, speedtest.net gives me the following speed test results.

Speed without XG

When I change the workstation to use the LAN IP address of the XG FIrewall as the gateway I get the following

Speed results with XG Firewall as the gateway

I'm barely getting one third (1/3) of the usual download speed and the upload speed is only two thirds (2/3) of the maximum available.

Is this the 'home version' limitation? or is it that my VM running on a Windows 7 host and I should be able to easily achieve the speeds I see when I don't use XG.

 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    One thing you did not mention is how the XG was configured when you did these tests.  Was it evaluating any of the traffic using the FW or Web filtering engines?

    If so, then then try installing an allow all rule at the top with no web, ips, appControl, or traffic-shaping policies setup - essentially just as straight a shot thru the XG as possible.

    It would be good to understand if the performance still suffers in this configuration.

Reply
  • 0

    One thing you did not mention is how the XG was configured when you did these tests.  Was it evaluating any of the traffic using the FW or Web filtering engines?

    If so, then then try installing an allow all rule at the top with no web, ips, appControl, or traffic-shaping policies setup - essentially just as straight a shot thru the XG as possible.

    It would be good to understand if the performance still suffers in this configuration.

Children
  • 0 in reply to cyberzeus

    cyberzeus said:

    One thing you did not mention is how the XG was configured when you did these tests.  Was it evaluating any of the traffic using the FW or Web filtering engines?

    If so, then then try installing an allow all rule at the top with no web, ips, appControl, or traffic-shaping policies setup - essentially just as straight a shot thru the XG as possible.

    It would be good to understand if the performance still suffers in this configuration.

     

     

    The XG configuration was out of the box. I spun up a VM and installed the ISO. From there I connected two virtual NICs one WAN the other LAN. That was it. No config changes from what is delivered.