I had my 1.3 monowall running on a Celeron 333MHz IBM PC300GL machine,
128MB memory.
I changed the nic's for Intel ones (3Com b4), total of 3 Intel NICs (LAN,
WAN, Opt1 where my WRT54GS is wired to).
I noticed that I did not get full speed on the wire with speed tests, my
connection is theoretically 10Mb, but with speedtests max was like 7Mb.

Since I had a same 300GL laying around here, but with a P3 500MHz with
192Mb memory, I put everything out of the old one and put in the P3, so
same nic's, same CF card, systemboard is even the same.

Then after I ran the same tests and came to the 10Mb! conclusion, on my
celeron I did not get the full speed from my connection, P3 I did.
So that will be your problem also, try a faster system.
I know theoreticly it should not give this big difference, but with me it
did....

cheers

Harbert

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:29:48 -0400, JP Vossen <jp at jpsdomain dot org> wrote:
> I recently moved my wireless access point to a dedicated interface on my 
> M0n0wall generic-pc 1.231 running on an 10 year old OptiPlex Gs+ P166. 
> (Wow, I'd forgotten how *old* that box was!  M0n0wall works great, 
> though the GUI is a tad sluggish.)
> 
> When the WRT54GL wireless AP was directly on the LAN, standard def MPEG2 
> played over MythTV perfectly.  Now that I've firewalled it (separate 
> segment, non-bridged) and opened up TCP/3306 and TCP/6543-6544 (tried 
> with and w/o 'frag'), playback is too choppy to watch.  It will play for 
> ~2 seconds, pause for ~2 seconds, etc.
> 
> I'm only using 21% of memory and CPU load is in the 0-5% range even when 
> attempting to watch MythTV.  No VPNs, pretty small environment.  FYI the 
> LAN and W_LAN ports are on the same IntelDual (fxp driver) card (though 
> I know the packets still have to leave the card to go through packet 
> filtering).  The LAN itself is a D-Link DLI-DGS-1224T "smart" 
> 10/100/1000 switch, and as noted when everything was local to that it 
> worked fine (since the limit there was wireless speed).
> 
> While I admit the FW hardware is ancient (P166!), according to M0n0wall 
> I'm still barely using it.  Does anyone think throwing hardware at the 
> firewall will fix this problem?  If so, why, since CPU and RAM use are 
> so low.  What am I missing?
> 
> Would the latest M0n0wall beta firmware help?
> 
> Thanks,
> JP
> ----------------------------|:::======|-------------------------------
> JP Vossen, CISSP            |:::======|      http://bashcookbook.com/
> My Account, My Opinions     |=========|      http://www.jpsdomain.org/
> ----------------------------|=========|-------------------------------
> "Microsoft Tax" = the additional hardware & yearly fees for the add-on
> software required to protect Windows from its own poorly designed and
> implemented self, while the overhead incidentally flattens Moore's Law.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>