Yes, me again. :-)

We had some testing with monowall 1.21  (generic-pc) and pfsense (whatever 
(1.0.beta1?)).

Throughput with same equipment was somewhat interesting.

With m0n0wall we got 10-12 Mbit/s, with pfsense we got 90-100 Mbit/s. Is 
there something that we did wrong with m0n0wall or is pfsense that much 
better? (Lan performance, bridged performance was almost same on either one)

Tested agains our ISPs speedtest (so, not perfect test, but ten times 
difference??)

Equipment was 1.7 Ghz P4, 256MB, 3 x 100Mb/s NICs. 1 x WAN, 1 x LAN, 1 X 
opt bridged with WAN.
And exactly same computer on both tests.

Out-of-box-performance difference were 10x, can't be explained easily?-) Or 
can it?

And sorry if pfsense is not allowed to mention on this list, but being 
relatives (somehow, m0n0 <-> pfsense), i just wanted to compare them 
(because m0n0wall was giving us bad performance)..

This question just because personally (at home) I have box that won't run 
pfsense (EM551, too little memory (64MB) , only 16MB disk-on-module), and 
like to see improvements on m0n0walls performance. :-)

The answer is somewhere in NAT? Because bridged performance was somewhat 
equal each other.. ?

- Harri