Hacker News Reader

He does the math to prove that when you subtract all the mandatory protocol and frame headers you end up with practical maximum of 949.28 Mbps on 1 Gbps line. Providing charts with 1011 Mbps in favor of WireGuard makes all the comparison at least dubious. Another thing he mentioned is the test compares ChaCha20 cipher with AES256-GCM which is totally unfair. Why would you invest so much in perfect code then to fake the benchmarks?

View on HN

Regarding the 1011Mbps figure: the graph _suggests_ the measurements are compared to powers of two (the axis is in powers of two and the line right next to the bar _suggests_ the maximum would be 1024), so I would be more inclined to believe there may have been a mix-up between mebibits/sec and megabits/sec, or something IEC/SI units related somewhere in the measurements? IMHO I don't think that the author would have any reason to fake the benchmarks (because it actually is an amazing piece of software), but I admit I like to err on the side of "assume good intentions".

(edit: rephrased for clarity)

Those benchmarks are ancient and the values being reported are confusing, but they're certainly not faked. I need to run new ones on a wider variety of hardware in a wider variety of circumstances and provide scripts to reproduce easily. It'd be nice to have lots of user submitted benchmarks of different environments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com