FreeBSD router two DSL connections

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Gayn Winters
>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:49 AM
>To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Winelfred G. Pasamba'; 'Yance Kowara'
>Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>Subject: RE: FreeBSD router two DSL connections
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Ted
>> Mittelstaedt
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Winelfred G.
>> >Pasamba
>> >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:26 AM
>> >To: Yance Kowara
>> >Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> >Subject: Re: FreeBSD router two DSL connections
>> >
>> >i use pfSense (www.pfsense.com)
>> >
>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> THIS IS NOT LOAD BALANCING PLEASE QUIT BEING SLOPPY WITH YOUR
>> NETWORKING TERMS!!!!
>>
>> I refer you to the pfsense website itself:
>>
>http://faq.pfsense.org/index.php?sid=13525&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=6&
>id=18&artlang=en
>
>> "Load balancing is on per connection basis, not a bandwidth basis.
>All
>> packets in a given flow will go over only one link."
>
>> In other words, they are redefining the term "load balancing" into
>> something that is not understood by any previously accepted definition
>> of load balancing, so that people like you can think your getting
>> something for nothing.
>
>> Once more - FTP to a remote site with your dual DSL links.  Copy
>> a FreeBSD ISO file to there.  Watch as the upload speed IS NO FASTER
>> THAN ONE OF THE LINKS.
>
>> Ted
>
>I just looked at the pfsense site, and for an Internet Café, it looks
>promising.  Two DSL lines to different ISP's does give a small amount of
>redundancy.  Whether you use two routers or pfsense, you get some sort
>of "load sharing" but not "load balancing."  A more appropriate
>performance test for an Internet Café would be:
>
>Take a dozen PC's each to transfer a FreeBSD 6.0R ISO file from a dozen
>different mirror sites.  Start them at the same time and see how long
>the all of the transfers take.
>
>You can test one DSL connection at N kbps and two DSL connections both
>at N kbps.  You'll undoubtedly see the effect of "load sharing" if the
>dozen PC's are more or less evenly divided over the two DSL lines.
>
>The redundancy isn't great, and you will pay for it.  Namely, two N kbps
>connections will cost you more than one 2N connection.  If you ran my
>benchmark on a 2N connection you might actually see an improvement over
>two N kbps connections due to to its inherent load balancing.  In any
>case, with a single (or a small number) of users (Ted's benchmark test)
>you would definitely see an improvement over two N kbps connections.
>
>Now the question:  is a faster AND cheaper 2N connection a better setup
>than two N kbps connections for our fabled Internet Café?
>

NO.

As I pointed out the MOST COMMON failure mode on DSL is SLOWNESS
not DISCONNECTS.  If you have a 2N connection and one of the DSL
modems starts going gunnysack, you are really going to have to
know your stuff to be able to detect this and fix it.  If the modem
picks 9:35pm at night to do this, or some other inconvenient time,
like seems to be the normal time for failures to happen, I
guarentee your not going to get anyone at the ISP who knows
shit from shinola to help you, and your going to be spinning your
wheels.

For the fabled Internet Cafe, really and truly and honestly, the
crude solution that the previous owner worked out is the best -
it is easy for relatively unsophisticated people (such as the
minimum wage high school student you hired to watch the place
after school) to troubleshoot, it is easy to get assistance from
the ISP on the failed leg, since the configuration is very basic and
standard, and it is dirt cheap.

I realize the temptation to mess with a running setup is strong,
and the temptation to change around something you buy so as to
put your own stamp on it is even stronger.  But it is a great way
to have terrible monsters come storming out of the closet that
the existing config was developed to work around.

>I'd personally go with the 2N connection.  Almost all the time it would
>be better.  Most large ISPs, for a little more money of course, will
>give you a faster response time on repairs.  The ISP might even provide
>a bank of modems and you could implement multilink PPP as your backup.
>

2N is great if you need to ship large data items around and your site
is way far away from the DSLAM.  But it is more complex and so you
need to be using it when the big guns both at the ISP and the
organization
are not in bed - meaning 9-5 - so that if problems happen they are
available to get them solved.  Think office environments for this.

Ted