PfSense vs m0n0wall
-
This may have been raised previously but I do have a Soekris 4801 and I am currently running m0n0wall 1.32. I lack though a hosts file option on m0n0wall, so I can have single-hosts lookup instead of needing to bind it to a domain (fx "router.local"). Does pfSense offer this hosts option?
And does anyone know if the pfSense can run smoothly on a 4801 box?
Thanks in advance.
-
And does anyone know if the pfSense can run smoothly on a 4801 box?
That depends on which 4801 you have. If it's got 128MB or 256MB of RAM you're probably OK, though it will be slow.
-
That depends on which 4801 you have. If it's got 128MB or 256MB of RAM you're probably OK, though it will be slow.
hw.machine: i386
hw.model: Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by National Semi
hw.ncpu: 1
hw.byteorder: 1234
hw.physmem: 108498944
hw.usermem: 91959296
hw.pagesize: 4096
hw.floatingpoint: 1
hw.machine_arch: i386
hw.realmem: 134217728So I would say 128MB. This is only hosting a 20Mbit ADSL connection and the webusage is limited but how slow would it be? Would anyone say too slow?
-
As far as passing packets, the two are comparable. Our web interface will be a bit slower on hardware of that spec, just a lot more things going on, we have protections from attacks against the web interface that m0n0wall doesn't have, amongst other differences. If you have a busy dashboard, it'll really hammer a box that slow, especially if you show the traffic graphs on the dashboard. Everything else is much less difference. Unless it's something you're constantly in making changes, it wouldn't be a big enough difference for that to be a factor.