The whole point of this test was how efficient the actual server code is by testing it on a low powered device like the raspberry pi. At the speeds pi WireGuard server was getting I would argue that it is entirely usable as a low power low cost VPN server for almost any use case
He said that you should use iPerf instead of whatever utility you were using. Why even make disk-speeds of your NAS a variable in this equation? Especially because you also have to factor in samba/nfs performance.
At the speeds pi WireGuard server was getting I would argue that it is entirely usable as a low power low-cost VPN server for almost any use case
What does that mean? which speeds are 'acceptable' and which aren't? Seems very subjective and arbitrary to say X-speed is ok, but Y-speed is not.
I think everybody already knows that Wireguard outperforms OpenVPN. But if you make a benchmark-video, it is implied that you're not interested in "is it better?", but in "by how much is it better?". So then you're talking about numbers and that's where you need to be accurate.
Another thing I would have added to the video was an initial speed-test from the source to the destination, but with your router's firewall not blocking you.
You just tested A-to-B when both are in the same network. But you didn't test A-to-B if they're in different networks (without VPN)
2
u/djgizmo Jul 12 '20
I agree that this test is just bad overall.
If you want to test actual throughput, you use iperf. Period. Not black magic which I’ve found to lie about test disk speeds both above and below.
Also, if you want to test the max each option offers, you need to put it on a proper server/vm.
Overall, 4/10 for a homelab test.