WRAP.2C + pfSense performance compared to m0n0wall



  • 1. On a WRAP.2C 128MB w/ embedded CF, I was curious how pfSense (beta 2-15-2006) performance (after boot) compared to m0n0wall (1.2b7)?
    2. Does pfSense 4x larger .img size have any effect on performance, other than longer boot times?
    3. What effect does using Bridge mode to pass MACs instead of normal routing/NAT mode have on performance?
    Thanks, -pc



  • m0n0 1.2b7 was freebsd5 based so it's slower than the 4.11 based versions. pfSense is based on freebsd6 which performs better than 5 but not as good as 4.11 (running on a wrap, highend hardware can be different).
    With the latest pfSense version I get a max of 28 mbit/s throughput wan to lan in default configuration with a wrap. Chris did some comparisons a long time ago with a slower soekris 4501 and a much older version of pfSense. Check out his graphs at http://chrisbuechler.com/4vs5/ (pfSense was based on freebsd5 as well these days, now it is 6 which is faster again).



  • @pcatiprodotnet:

    1. On a WRAP.2C 128MB w/ embedded CF, I was curious how pfSense (beta 2-15-2006) performance (after boot) compared to m0n0wall (1.2b7)?

    substantially faster than the 5.3 versions (1.2b5-7), substantially slower than the 4.x based versions.

    @pcatiprodotnet:

    2. Does pfSense 4x larger .img size have any effect on performance, other than longer boot times?

    no.

    @pcatiprodotnet:

    3. What effect does using Bridge mode to pass MACs instead of normal routing/NAT mode have on performance?

    bridging is faster, though I don't have any solid numbers as to how much faster.



  • oh, btw, we have 32 mbit/s max on a wrap now with the latest version  ;D



  • Hm. Nice. I was just wondering, if pfSense can handle 20mbps ADSL2 on my WRAP, but with the good news I'll give it a try ;)



  • No problems here with ADSL2+ 16mbit/s down,1 mbit/s up  :)


Log in to reply