Wireguard only uses one of your weak VPSs cores? Run multiple tunells and bind them to act as a single interface!
>>24914684Hmm, insodoing will this make me a real man? Also, what does that mean.
>>24914684binding ip tunnels are for hacks that dont know what they are doing.use ipsec since it has hardware acceleration in most network cpu's if you need high throughput, use multiple wireguard tunnels then route the traffic using policy routing to balance the load as you see fit or if you 100% need to bridge multiple tunnels use l2tp v3 since you can configure it to be a layer 2 tunnel
>>24914730no, it makes you an autistic sissy but its not so bad because then you find this shit interesting and will never be bored again>>24914745y-yeah totally something like that
>>24914770whats the use case with this anyway? wireguard is low cost so you shouldnt have any issues running hundreds of megs through it.
>>24914803i like playing around and min maxing stuff when i am bored. the one tunnel i already have works just fine for my usecase. it has slightly lower latency than regular connections somehow even. but when i load the tunnel latency spikes to like 100ms from 16ms. that neeeever ever happens in production but knowing how to do this stuff is sure to come in handy some day i think.although the way things are set up every application can just have its very own tunnel pretty easy so dunno
>>24914806>when i load the tunnel latency spikes to like 100ms from 16msdo you look at your systems resources when doing so? identifying why it spikes is important.also if this is on a router and not a pc/phone that does it for you remember to set the MTU if you know how to do so.how are you testing it under load?>every application can just have its very own tunnel pretty easy so dunnowould be annoying to set up, but if you got the time i dont see why not, remember that more tunnels will add to the cpu load. on routers you can use policy routing so you can send different protocols or port or basically what ever out what tunnel you want.you could isolate your web traffic out one tunnel, your gaming stuff out the other etc
>>24914810>do you look at your systems resources when doing so?yeah. cpu spikes like crazy on the wireguard server side. loading the wireguard kernel module didnt change the latency issue but it looks like the cpu is raped slightly less. hmm maybe i should get my priorities straight..>remember to set the MTU if you know how to do so.been neglecting to do that. it might just be that actually but i'm not too sure. will work on that next. should do that before i try any multi-tunnel shenanigans.>how are you testing it under load?i just ping it and run iperf3 at the same time and watch htop on both machines.>you could isolate your web traffic out one tunnel, your gaming stuff out the other etcthat's already kinda how it works. and it does so fine without any issues.again this is a non-issue but im boredgot the idea from a paper (picrel) i read on the matter.
>>24914684You do realize things are not parallelized in a way for this to do anything when stuff is only coming from one peer address, probably the opposite way around since it's so highly optimized
