[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Rhon-Kaniel Bramwell" <rhonkaniel at anngel dot com>
 To:  "'sai'" <sonicsai at gmail dot com>, "'SDamron'" <sdamron at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  "'Mark Ryan'" <markryan at cfl dot rr dot com>, "'Monowall Support List'" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] best version and future for WRAP
 Date:  Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:18:46 -0500
My problem with the whole 1.22 version of m0n0wall on wrap was the inability
for m0n0 to support the ath driver... I don't know how many of you use m0n0
but I use it primarily for Access Points and the lack of the ath driver was
a BIG problem for me.

So personally, I'm EXTREMELY grateful for the 1.3 FreeBSD 6 move.


Rhon

-----Original Message-----
From: sai [mailto:sonicsai at gmail dot com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:35 AM
To: SDamron
Cc: Mark Ryan; Monowall Support List
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] best version and future for WRAP

m0n0 1.22 is based on FreeBSD 4.11
m0n0 1.3 is based on FreeBSD 6

FreeBSD 4.11 has excellent ethernet throughput
FreeBSD 6 has had a lot of work done on supporting SMP (which is multiple
CPUs).

Your best performance on small, embedded machines is probably going to
come from m0n0 1.22 ; if you have a large machine with multiple CPUs
then m0n0 1.3 will eventually give better throughput.

sai

On 1/6/07, SDamron <sdamron at gmail dot com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


__________ NOD32 1959 (20070105) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com