[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  SDamron <sdamron at gmail dot com>
 To:  "Mark Ryan" <markryan at cfl dot rr dot com>
 Cc:  "Monowall Support List" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] best version and future for WRAP
 Date:  Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:27:42 -0600
Probably the increase is due to going to the newer version of the core
OS.  I noticed a small increase, about double memory usage and
probably 5-7% increase in CPU usage...can you give details on your
increases?

On 1/5/07, Mark Ryan <markryan at cfl dot rr dot com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a WRAP (266mhz, 128mb) and I have been following the development
> of both m0n0wall and pfsense.  It is obvious that pfsense has a much
> different goal than m0n0wall and that it is mostly centered on features.
>
> M0n0wall on the other hand is still (?) centered on supporting embedded
> platforms.
>
> My question is this.  Can we expect better performance in the future
> from the 1.3 branch than the current beta 2 version?  I ask the question
> because I have noticed a huge jump in cpu and ram usage from 1.22 to
> 1.3b2.  No w I know that this new version most probably fits the bill
> for most home applications of a WRAP but my concern is the future.
> Internet connections are getting faster everyday.
>
> Should we expect better performance in the future builds or should the
> WRAP and Soekris users stick with 1.22?  Also, should there be a split
> development of m0n0wall...1 for embedded devices and the other for
> feature rich pc's?
>
> Mark Ryan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>


-- 
-------------------------------
A fight to the death between zombies has a few inherent problems.