[Openvpn-users] Re: Recommended configuration, was: Re: OpenVPN security model (John Locke)

[Ged Haywood <ged@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi there,

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 John Locke wrote:

> successfully deployed OpenVPN for a small business ...  I've been
> looking at the other options ... wondering what the recommended
> configuration would be. ... I have set up 4 bridged tap devices and
> 6 tun devices ...  I expect no more than two or three remote VPN
> connections up at any one time. How much overhead do the waiting,
> unused openvpn daemons use, compared to changing to the xinetd
> configuration?

I would think that you should look to security issues before you worry
about performance.  According to 'top' my OpenVPN server has used just
over seven minutes of CPU time in a month.

> It seems to me that the xinetd configuration might be a little more
> reliable, since a process that somehow dies would automatically start up
> at the next connection. Has anyone had OpenVPN daemons die?

When I was using kernel 2.6.0-test5 on the server I had some trouble
with the link dying although the daemons themselves were still present
and happily logging refused connections.  This problem seems to be
very much reduced, if not gone away altogether, now that I am using
kernel 2.4.23.  I have had two instances of the link failing in about
a month with this configuration.  See my earlier messages on this List
for more details.

> Thanks for some great software!

Happy to echo that sentiment.  :)

73,
Ged.


____________________________________________
Openvpn-users mailing list
Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users