- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello, I’ve been using WireSock for about 2 months now, switched off from WireGuard for Windows because a friend showed me that I can have more control of which apps go and don’t go through the VPN.
Today I just realized I’m getting slower speeds and unstable connection with WireSock, I’ve noticed before but it didn’t bother me too much to check the issue.
I have 800/400 up/down internet at home, my speedtests also report the same, however the moment I turn on my WireSock client tunnel, it drops down to around 400/400, and it goes up really slowly, sometimes not even fast enough to hit 300.
As I knew WireSock is supposed to have a better performance than WireGuard client itself, I decided to look on why this was happening, that’s when I tried -lac and the results were:
800/400 up/down without WireSock
800/400 up/down with WireSock -lac (Virtual Network Interface)
400/400 up/down with normal WireSock and takes long to get to 400 stable, like 10 seconds (both above are instantly to 800).
All tests were done in the same server.
What could be causing this?
And last, is there any real difference if I use -lac or not?
Hello,
The most notable distinction between WireSock’s virtual adapter mode and its default mode is that the former requires Administrator privileges to configure the virtual network adapter, while the latter does not. Regarding the throughput differences you’ve observed, this is intriguing. In my tests using WireSock in default mode on a 10 Gbps network and iperf3, the speeds reached 5.34 Gbit/sec, compared to 3.66 Gbit/sec for downloads when using the official WireGuard client. Could the MTU settings in your configuration be influencing this? What is the MTU value you are using? Additionally, have you tried reducing the MTU to 1380 to see if it impacts performance?It’s generally advisable to adjust the MTU on both the client and the server. Remember, changing MTU settings is often a process of trial and error, and what’s optimal can vary depending on your specific network conditions.
Ok, I just tried MTU 1380 and I got the same results, so I’m assuming this is not because of MTU, and I don’t think it’d be because the virtual adapter setting also uses the same MTU I’m assuming.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.