[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de>
 To:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Re[3]: The future
 Date:  Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:40:43 +0200
Am Mittwoch, den 12.10.2005, 22:46 -0400 schrieb Chris Buechler:
> so to the thousands of existing 4501, 4801, and WRAP users, they're
> just out of luck?  For what, an OS that has nearly no benefits (and
> many drawbacks) over the other, faster options?  Chances are, for at
> least the next 6 months to a year, the existing Soekris and WRAP lines
> will continue to be the most popular m0n0wall platform.
The survey will show that. The last told us, that 61% were using PC
based HW and 32% of them with more than 300MHz CPUs. Only 18% were using
the (old) net4501.

> > And, of course, hardware
> > support keeps getting better across the board, so the real question is
> > not what's available now but what would be available by the release
> > date.
Much more slower than a net4501?

> One of the pfsense devs tested a WRAP and 4801 with latest Open vs.
> Free 6.  I don't recall the exact numbers offhand, but 4.x can get
> about 45 Mb, 6.x around 30 Mb, Open around 20 Mb, IIRC.
Interesting. Although I want to see the excact details about the test
build-up I can't image any cause I would need more than 20 Mb/sec. on my
net4501. But you are right, 20 Mb compared 45 Mb is a mess, compared to
30 Mb is 2/3, not so wild IMHO but worth enough to mention it.

> I have a couple 4501's, a 4801, a couple WRAP's, and some other misc
> hardware and have run numerous benchmarks in the past.  I'll probably
> end up doing so again soon.
Yes, please. Provide us with results + a description to reproduce them.

> The other reasons are enough to eliminate Open, especially if we want
> to continue wireless support.  OpenBSD will never use Atheros binary
> drivers, so will never end up with a highly reliable ath driver.
Wireless support sucks. Sorry about that. In the past Manuel has said
that wireless support is the work for a dedicated device, not a firewall
like m0n0wall. I can only emphasise this. IMHO it's enough when the new
OS can support what is currently in use by the m0n0wal users.

> That's another good reason to avoid Open, their
> political/philosophical beliefs punish the user base. 
Ahh, I only waited for that. Don't want to say anything to that point.

BR,
  PIT


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 copyleft(c) by |           #else /* !STDSTDIO */ /* The big, slow, and
 Peter Allgeyer |   _-_     stupid way */  -- Larry Wall in str.c from
                | 0(o_o)0   the perl source code
---------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------------------------