[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Ron Rosson <ron dot rosson at gmail dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall-dev <m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] The future
 Date:  Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:16:31 -0500
From reading most of the posts so far here is what I can see:
* Looks like LINUX is out of the question [ Not a Linux Fan ]
* Looks like everyone wants PF
* Speed is an issue.
> * Can we get some comparisons on *BSD for speed and the versions to see how
> much are we losing.
> * Can we sacrifice a little bit of speed for stability, functionality, and
> security

That is what I have so far. Being the guy who started opensoekris a time
back and have shifted to m0n0, it has been a thought to be able to see a
gussied up OpenBSD for m0n0wall instead of the shell/CLI interfaces that all
the OpenBSD soekris projects seem to have in common.

With OpenBSD we get native support for
* PF 
* Integrated ALTQ 
* AuthPF 
* and many more.  [Drawing a Blank]  ;-)

-Ron
 
-- 
Ron Rosson
ron dot rosson at gmail dot com
http://www.oneinsane.net


> From: Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:49:35 -0400
> Cc: <m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] The future
> 
> On 10/13/05, Kris Maglione <bsdaemon at comcast dot net> wrote:
>> 
>> Do you have any input on Dragonfly? I haven't done any testing or seen
>> any benchmarks, is doing some good work with the networking stack.
>> Within a few months, they claim that they will have eliminated Giant and
>> made the entire stack threaded... I'm not sure whether this will affect
>> single processor performance in a good or bad way, but it should be
>> great for SMP. At the very least, it merits the same level of testing
>> that 5.3 got, though I'm not sure that I like the idea of the beta
>> flip-floping between BSDs between releases.
>> 
> 
> 
> Since pf is the best firewalling option, and at a minimum, ALTQ and
> pfsync/CARP either don't exist or don't seem to be stable on DFly (not
> sure about pf in general), I don't think it's a good option.
> 
> It's not nearly as well tested or widely deployed as any of the other
> BSD's.  Hardware support is better than FreeBSD 4.x, but not even
> close to 6.x.  What hardware is supported isn't widely tested.  As an
> indicator of what kind of issues we'd run into, pfsense just uses
> DFly's installer and ended up running into all kinds of nasty bugs
> that kept some people from successfully installing with certain
> hardware (which have mostly been resolved, but regardless...).
> 
> from one of my other posts on this thread:
> 
> "I wouldn't consider DragonFly at all at this point.  Too many things
> won't compile without a whole lot of effort.  It'd be a real pain to
> get together a working image.  It's probably the fastest of the bunch,
> but that's about all it has going for it."
> 
> and I'm involved, to some extent, with DFly, or at least the installer
> team:  http://bsdinstaller.org/about.html
> 
> Scott, pfsense founder, is even a DFly committer and still chose Free.
>  Just too many issues in pf, pfsync/CARP, and ALTQ to consider DFly.
> Aside from the other issues.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>