I currently have my FIOS connected through a 10/100 router. I don't see how but I'm thinking I might see a speed increase if I switched to a gigabit router. Not because the actual FIOS connection is faster than the router, just because it uses 20 Mbps out of the 100 Mbps, I thought it might be taxing the hardware or something. Anyone know anything about this who can comment?
It won't make one hill of beans of a difference. Whether you are running 100 MB or 1GB, the fabric is running at the speed of light in both. Once your data stream approaches 80%+ of the limit of the 100 MB router, then you will begin to see a speedup difference if you switch to the 1GB router. For trading data, it is extremely unlikely (I have never seen) a packet that even comes close to being 100MB big. nitro
nitro, seeing you know about this stuff. i have fios and cable. could you recommend a dual-wan hardware firewall solution with failover? thanks
At 20Mbps it isnt so much the WAN interface speed that is the issue as much as the CPU in the router. There are 10/100 routers than can handle 20Mbps and then there are many that can't. Of course you will know if they can handle that throughput if you go to a speedtest site, if you are getting the full 20Mbps right now through the router then there is no point in upgrading. In general a Gigabit router should have a newer processor with better throughput but it isnt guaranteed. Also, as I'm sure you know, your FIOS ONT (e.g. your WAN connection) is only 100 Mbps so even if you connect a router with a Gig WAN port it will still only communicate at 100Mbps (e.g. the Gig WAN feature goes unused, having Gig LAN ports is still cool if your PC's support Gig speeds) PS: I'm jealous that you get the 20Mbps FIOS service, where I live the mid-tier is still only 15Mbps! Edit: Here is what I was looking for: WAN to LAN throughput Router Performance Chart http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,156/?chart=119
I'm not nitro but if you are willing to pay for it ($600) then this is what you want: Cisco ASA 5505 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1058197
It's not dual WAN. To the original poster. I don't like these dual WAN routers. I prefer to spend money on one good symmetric DSL connection. IMO if you are looking to create a fault tolerant setup at home, it means that the connection you are on is not right for trading, or other realtime, mission critical applications. I have used SBC symmetric business class DSL, and SpeakEasy Symmetric DSL. If my connection is down 1 minute a year, it is a miracle. I don't like Cable (in my area) for trading. nitro
That's news to me. I have this unit although I admit I havent tried the Dual WAN config yet it has three physical interfaces and from Cisco doc 70559 (ASA/PIX 7.x: Redundant or Backup ISP Links Configuration Example) it sure looks like it supports redundant WAN links. Why do you think its not dual WAN?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/prod_brochure0900aecd80402e36.html Just because there are three interfaces at the back doesn't mean they are WAN. Almost all firewalls have three NICs so as to seperate the DMZ from the LAN network. If this thing is a dual WAN router, CSCO is doing a real good job of hiding it in the specs. nitro
Actually most low-end firewalls dont have a 3rd interface (PIX 501 for example) however if you are familiar with how Cisco firewalls work the interfaces are all interchangable, they arent pre-configured as "LAN" or "WAN", you choose the security level for each. I understand that the default usage for the 3rd interface is for a DMZ however if you read the article I referred to its clearly states that they support a dual WAN config (in fact the article includes a sample config)