Why should I choose pfsense over an appliance. Example: Edimax BR-6624



  • We have been using Pfsense for over a year now, segregating game traffic from web traffic. Game traffic goes to WAN1, web traffic goes to WAN2. It keeps everyone happy as online players do not get lag whenever someone opens a youtube video, or torrents a big file.

    Lately some of my colleagues have been bugging me to switch over from pfsense to a dumb box like the Edimax BR-6624  http://www.edimax.com/en/produce_detail.php?pd_id=49&pl1_id=3&pl2_id=20 To save up on space. (My current pfsense box is an old desktop)

    For people who have a combined connection speed of less than 10mbps, what is the advantage of a pfsense system? I am asking not because I am dissatisfied with pfsense. To be honest, I have already decided on keeping my existing pfsense box. I am just interested in the input of other people.

    btw, I am using an old dell PIII w/128mb memory and 2 intel nics. Has been forwarding game and web traffic across 2 dsl connections for over a year. Never had a problem.



  • Only thing that might be better about that device than your current pfSense machine:

    • less powerconsumption
    • needs less space
    • makes less noise
    • less heat

    but you can achieve this by running pfsense on a soekris or alix or any other embedded appliance. Besides that I wouldn't prefer that device over pfsense  ;)



  • @hoba:

    Only thing that might be better about that device than your current pfSense machine:

    • less powerconsumption
    • needs less space
    • makes less noise
    • less heat

    I could care less about those things above. I only care about features and stability.  ;D



  • I'm a bit biased here of course so I won't do any further comments on this topic  ;D



  • Biased is perfect.  In fact, biased is just what I need.  :D

    Ok, I have long decided on pfsense, I just need some sort of reinforcement.



  • I was using an Edimax 6541k (Quad WAN) router; and quite frankly…it sucked.   It had less memory, often slowed down to a crawl during heavy traffic; especially when lots of states.  I had to reboot it quite often.  Since switching to Pfsense, (4 wan+1 Lan) no problems. IMO, these SOHO routers, are ok for a few hosts on the LAN, but if you put any serious demand on them, they tank.



  • I changed a simple home router (speedtouch) to pfsense just because i wanted lower ping on gaming and i did get it from 40~50 to 20~30 ms.
    I a have one box runnig 24/7/365 (had a 1.0.1 version with 117 days of uptime) i am using the new release now.
    Its more flexible and if the hardware fails you can have it running in less than an hour again with the same config


Log in to reply