Live data from Hacker News

Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

snikt.net

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#11
post #8

Would a Pi4 be able to handle being both a VPN and a pihole, or should these be two separate boxes?

I run mine as both a OpenHAB and as PiHole server. I dont see why not. Of course a VPN might be slightly more involved. I am thinking of splitting it up and doing a VPN with PiHole though so I can get access to my internal network to manage OpenHAB remotely. I want my OpenHAB Pi to be stand alone.

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#13
post #10
post #2

What's the throughput like on a Raspberry Pi?

Here is someone's benchmark from reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/WireGuard/comments/eeafds/wireguard... (tl;dr "Avg: 829 Mbps")

That's for a Raspberry Pi 4, which should have a pretty drastic performance difference from the Raspberry Pi 3 mentioned in the article since only one of those has proper gigabit Ethernet.

It does seem pretty good though. I'm having trouble getting past 25 Mb/s in, 100 Mb/s out on my Edgerouter X.

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#14
I have beeen looking at setting up a vpn to be able to hook up my pc to the office network. I don't know a whole lot about it but I ended up trying out Softether for the job just this weekend. It's a free and opensource project from the University of Tsukuba, Japan. It promises that it can achieve speeds far higher than Openvpn. It was really just a click next, next type setup both on client and server which was the reason I went for it over openvpn which seemed more complicated and would require me to handle DNS stuff etc. I was impressed that I was able to get it up and run a desktop application designed for a local network with a minimal increase in lagginess. I'd value the opinions of people more knowledgeable than I who may have tried it.

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#15
post #2

What's the throughput like on a Raspberry Pi?

I was only able to get ~60mbps with OpenVPN through a hard wired Raspberry Pi 3 connected to Google Fiber, due to limitations of its bus. The 4 is supposed to be actual gigabit, but I have not yet tried it out to confirm.

Which bus limits to 60mbps? The USB limitation shouldn't be anywhere near that low.

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only able to get ~60mbps with OpenVPN through a hard wired Raspberry Pi 3 connected to Google Fiber, due to limitations of its bus. The 4 is supposed to be actual gigabit, but I have not yet tried it out to confirm.

Which bus limits to 60mbps? The USB limitation shouldn't be anywhere near that low.

The USB bus on those is shared with all devices

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#18
post #2

What's the throughput like on a Raspberry Pi?

I was only able to get ~60mbps with OpenVPN through a hard wired Raspberry Pi 3 connected to Google Fiber, due to limitations of its bus. The 4 is supposed to be actual gigabit, but I have not yet tried it out to confirm.

Raspberry Pi 3 can do at least 250 Mbps. Perhaps it's limited by something else, like crypto or your actual connection?

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#19
post #8

Would a Pi4 be able to handle being both a VPN and a pihole, or should these be two separate boxes?

Been using the Pi1 for a couple years now with OpenVPN and Pihole, never had problems (though the only one using the VPN is me, at any time), so I'd say the Pi4 should be more than capable :-)

Re: Building a Simple VPN with WireGuard with a Raspberry Pi as Server

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which bus limits to 60mbps? The USB limitation shouldn't be anywhere near that low.

The USB bus on those is shared with all devices

True. It does depend what else you are doing with the pi. Something like a USB hard drive could account for that poor performance, especially if you were upload from/downloading to it.
Post reply on HN