Brand names - and sometimes chip numbers - are more useful than price 
ranges; you could be using a $9.99 intel NIC you got from a friend who 
was about to throw it in the garbage, or you might have a $180 NIC with 
a chipset that actually *belongs* in the garbage.

Also you haven't defined "much higher latency", or, for that matter, how 
exactly you've measured it. No mention of what OS you're using, why 
you'd have a net -> firewall -> net -> firewall -> pc setup, etc.

How much RAM do you have on the plain PC? 32MB? 32GB? With only one 
computer behind it, there should be little (if any) difference; but it 
doesn't hurt to say.

Is it the CD version? The HD image version? Not that it matters much, 
but you never know.

How about the version? Are you using 1.21? 1.20? 1.2b7? -0.3? That can 
also influence your results (although NIC choice and config is most 
likely your problem).

Elaborate a bit...

Robert L. Pumphrey wrote:

>I have setup a plain 550Mhz PC with Monowall, two NIC cards one is a cheap  $9.99 card and was
testing the system.  The test setup is current internet -> T1 router/firewall -> switch -> monowall
firewall -> switch -> My PC.  In this test config I see much higher lantancy then I do with My PC on
My network as normal.  Current internet -> T1 router/firewall -> switch -> My PC.  The question is
this a problem with My test setup, or the Monowall PC and NIC cards are just not that great.  As
this is a test setup My PC is the only one behind monowall.
>
>Robert Pumphrey
>rlpumphrey at 1mage dot com
>1MAGE Software Inc.
>6025 S. Quebec St.
>Englewood, CO 80111
>(303) 773-1424 ex101
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>  
>