[zizek23]

Wireguard is easier to configure and use and in my informal tests performed at close to line speed, around 870 Mbs on a gigabit network.

This is extremely fast for an encrypted network given most other solutions tend to take a severe toll on performance often operating at 140/180 Mbs on gigabit networks.

The only drawback currently is it's a kernel module and needs to be compiled, which makes setup across systems a bit involved, however there are ongoing efforts to merge into the kernel.

It's unfortunate innovate open source tools like Wireguard that add a lot of value to networking and clustering are not more well known.

[bsder]

> The only drawback currently is it's a kernel module and needs to be compiled, which makes setup across systems a bit involved, however there are ongoing efforts to merge into the kernel.

Do these things have to be kernel modules? Is this a kernel module on OS X?

I ask because 90%+ of the time my OS X system goes unstable the moment I add a .kext.

[mcpherrinm]

There is a Go implementation which runs in userspace, which is what the OSX version is. No .kext here.

[bradknowles]

OpenVPN can also be configured to operate a near line speed. It all depends on the underlying hardware, software, and configuration you're using.

Without being more specific in those areas and benchmarking the best reasonable configuration of one tool against the best reasonable configuration of the other tool, and then holding the rest of the factors constant, you've created a completely implausible and unsupportable conclusion.

I'm not saying that WireGuard isn't faster. I'm saying that you have done a poor job of describing how it is faster, and pointing to benchmark references to back up your claims.