[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  JP Vossen <jp at jpsdomain dot org>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] SD MythTV, more CPU needed on FW?
 Date:  Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:37:23 -0400
(I get the digest of this list, so I'm just going to address various 
points here, instead of trying to copy all the bits in.)

First, thanks for all the thoughts...

Chris & John, Status, Interfaces has:

LAN interface
	Status 	up
	Media 	100baseTX <full-duplex>
	In/out packets 	14809537/18704702 (2.64 GB/408.89 MB)
	In/out errors 	12888/0
	Collisions 	390194

W_LAN interface
	Status 	up
	Media 	100baseTX <full-duplex>
	In/out packets 	176458/230149 (34.93 MB/241.61 MB)
	In/out errors 	0/0
	Collisions 	0

The number of collisions on the LAN is probably not as interesting as it 
looks, as I have uptime of 42 days and for at least a couple of weeks of 
that the LAN was a *hub* not a switch, and I know I had a high collision 
rate.


Michel, the purpose of the M0n0wall is to firewall and log wireless. 
I'd rather use the WRT as a wireless point and use the firewall as a 
firewall.  Having the wireless directly on the LAN was just a temporary 
step to get it to work used fewer variables.


John, I was/am thinking about bridging wireless to the LAN.  (I'm old 
enough that segmenting the network was my knee-jerk reaction and so 
that's what I went with.)  Separate NICs are an interesting thought. 
The segments ended up on the same NIC mostly by accident, and could be 
moved.  I'd had some half-baked idea that having them on the same card 
might help, but I hadn't been thinking that through.


Lee & Harbert, I wanted to hear if moving to better H/W had even a 
chance of working, since I'm barely using the H/W I'm on.  You guys said 
it might, so...  I have a P3 something-or-other sitting around, so I 
will give that a shot.  I'm *probably* going to change more than 1 thing 
at a time and install the latest beta firmware on a new drive, so all I 
have to do is move NICs back and forth for switch-over or back-out.

In any case, I will report back to the list when I try the newer hardware.

Thanks again,
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.