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.



  • @JoeSpam8:

    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.



  • @Jason:

    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: 134217728

    So 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.


Locked