[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Daniele Guazzoni <daniele dot guazzoni at gcomm dot ch>
 To:  m0n0wall list <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Why I left M0N0Wall
 Date:  Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:38:02 +0100
Well Bryan

too bad if you are disappointed of m0n0wall.
I have several WRAP with 1.11 and some VIA mini-ITX with 1.2b5 running rock-stable.
Be aware that everything in 1.2 is still beta so bugs and minor deseases are the price for
cutting-edge features.

I've tried in the past several firewall, like Astaro, ClarkConnect, ShoreWall,...
Of course it's not only a matter of features and security but also of "taste" and m0n0wall is the
only one which does not require 
overkill HW and is not so nitty-gritty.

What else should I say ?
Enjoy you ClarkConnect.


Bryan Marc Schaubach wrote:
> Hello m0n0wall users,
> I am not here to flame, I am not here to berate anything.. just to
> describe to you my series of events that led me to giving up on m0n0wall..
> First off, I have been a very happy m0n0wall user for a long time now..
> I am a heavy P2P user with a personal LAN of about 6 computers, one of
> which uses P2P a lot.  I switched TO m0n0wall because my crappy d-link
> router crashed at least once a day because of the packet load.
> With that said, I have had a good relationship with the ease and
> functionality of m0n0wall.  So from there, I have been using the beta's
> up until 1.2b5 .. when I upgraded to b6 my computer would give a seg
> fault on loading -- I guess my celeron 933 was just too outdated for
> it?? oh well.. not to worry, I liked b5.. it worked great until....
> The link to the forum with a description of the problem and the solution
> is here:
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-313471.html
> I initially thought it was my AMD64 box running Gentoo, but come to find
> out, the packet loss was due to m0n0wall.  This 24% packet loss might be
> fine for everyday surfing, but to me running heavy P2P apps, it is
> detrimental...  P2P apps like Azureus send a tremendous amount of
> packets on one port to the router at once.. and this is the crux of the
> problem.
> My main machine does indeed run a gigabit card and I have had everybody
> I know run that ping command.. some on the stable m0n0wall version and
> some on beta versions and it all resulted in a 20-24% packet loss for
> EVERYBODY.. from someone using a 400mhz machine to even better than my
> 933 celeron with 512MB of ram! 
> So, test it yourself.. from a LAN computer run ping -f -c 100000
> 192.168.x.x and see what happens.. do it to another computer in your lan
> and then to the m0n0wall box..  I bet you will find that m0n0wall limits
> the connection speed and actually drops packets if they come too fast.
> So I switched to ClarkConnect and now when I run the ping command, I get
> 0% packet loss.. I talked about it to a few people and they suggest that
> I post to the m0n0wall list just to let you know what my experiences are...
> Now there might well be a fix for this, but alas, for me -- it is too
> late.  I have switched and have a lot more control over the system than
> I had before as ClarkConnect has integrated mrtg and I even installed
> gkrellmd to monitor things from my local machine.. I know that this is
> COMPLETELY out of the scope of the philosophy of m0n0wall and I
> absolutely respect that.. it is not a flame in ANY way.. I appreciate
> your efforts and wish this project the best.. I just wanted to post my
> experiences.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch



Daniele Guazzoni

Senior Network Engineer, CCNP, CCNA

Ackersteinstrasse 203
CH-8049 Zurich

mail: daniele dot guazzoni at gcomm dot ch

PGP key ID 0xA8CC16F7
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice;
it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
                         William Jennings Bryan