On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Mark Crane wrote:
Would think so, too. The only problem is that's it has only
two physical NICs. Many things in pfSense need at least one OPT.
it has wireless, that can be an 'opt'.
it has USB2.0, which can make for a 10/100 'opt'.
There is also wireless, and
On Jul 30, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Mark Dueck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Throughput will be minimal. From 512Kbps to 2Mbps max. I guess my
biggest
concern is stability. I have lab tested the Soekris 4801 with
openVPN to
have throughput of
Assuming you want continiois coverage, same channel is actually best,
unless you can go cross-band, which impacts roaming.
The number of people who don't understand this, and instead want to
talk about 3 non-overlapping channels and other cr*p is amazing.
Same ESSID is what you want, too.
, by definion, are strong emitters.
Jim
On Jul 17, 2008, at 12:28 PM, RB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jim Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming you want continiois coverage, same channel is actually
best, unless
you can go cross-band, which impacts roaming
, Jim Thompson wrote:
Assuming you want continiois coverage, same channel is actually best,
unless you can go cross-band, which impacts roaming.
The number of people who don't understand this, and instead want to
talk about 3 non-overlapping channels and other cr*p is amazing.
Same ESSID is what you
On Jul 17, 2008, at 5:36 AM, RB wrote:
That's what I was thinking: isn't it a problem to have to APs with
same SSID
(and maybe the same channel) in reach of each other?
Don't the clients get confused? Or are the drivers usually smart
enough not
to flap between the two?
Many righteous
I find this an interesting argument, but I'd like to see some real
analysis (with numbers), or at least sources.
If you're right, I'm doing it wrong (3 old trucks (2 toyota
landcruisers, one 67 chevy converted to a flatbed) + selling new
computer components).
I don't see much evidence
On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:35 PM, David Rees wrote:
Way OT, but hopefully others find it interesting...
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Jim Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find this an interesting argument, but I'd like to see some real
analysis
(with numbers), or at least sources
I haven't heard anything about this.
On Jul 29, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Kelvin Chiang wrote:
I read in the previous threds that the development teams need some
support on XScale boards. Do you still need them?
Regards, Kelvin
-Original Message-
From: Jim Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:18 AM
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] XScale Platforms
I haven't heard anything about this.
On Jul 29, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Kelvin Chiang wrote:
I read
Further to the discussion early this month, and in specific reference
to: http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion@pfsense.com/msg02110.html
and noting the fact that the end of February is upon us.
Work proceeds. Some of you may have noticed that the ixp42x support
recently got MFC-ed to
Working on a 'port' of pfSense to the Gateworks ixp42x platform, as
well as a 6 x 10/100 Enet + 2 x miniPCI box I have access to...
(I'm the guy who sold all the xscale developers (save Sam Leffler)
gateworks boards at my cost.)
The Gateworks boards we carry have 64MB ram, 8MB flash and CF
Its not possible. 802.11 won't let you, since it has noplace to send
the ACKs.
This is well-covered elsewhere.
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Holger Bauer wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking for. Can you try to rephrase?
Holger
-Original Message-
From: William Armstrong
Chun Wong wrote:
Hi,
I have two fw platforms, mono 1.21 running on a Nokia120 and pfsense1.0beta2
running on an AMD athlon 900.
I can get 2.2MBs on the 120 platform, at 96% cpu usage. On the athlon,
32bit, 33Mhz pci, I can get 7MBs using Intel PRO 1000MT 64 bit PCI cards.
My question is what
-duplex .vs half-duplex mismatch
mtu mismatch
Thanks !
--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: discussion@pfsense.com
Betreff: Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus
Datum: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:41:15 -0600
On 3/14/06, Jim Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED
Gil Freund wrote:
Hi,
I had a look at the Checkpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] device and I am looking for a
similar
platform for pfsense. I currently use Wraps, but I am looking for something with
more interfaces (5 or 6, of which 4 are a lan switch) and one or (preferably)
two MiniPCI.
We're
DarkFoon wrote:
I am curious if it is possible to merge-for want of a better
word-pfSense with a FreeBSD install. Why? Well, I have a client who
wants to integrate everything into 1 box if possible. I told him its
not possible, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't check to see
if I am
Chris Buechler wrote:
Alex DiMarco wrote:
Does anyone have benchmarks on the WRAP running fpsense?
about 25 Mb is the most you can expect. I wouldn't use one if you
need constant throughput of over 15 Mb for extended periods.
I assume this is Ethernet-Ethernet.
About the only thing
(I was off-island (and off-line) for a week on vacation, sorry for
the delayed response.)
One of the things I've been considering adding to pfSense is to have
the Ethernet device(s) 'fail' into auto-configuration space,
and then allow the web GUI to be advertised via DNS Service Discovery.
the overheads aren't limited to beaconing and CSMA/CA. The largest
'overhead' is that the 802.11 MAC can't keep the air full. There are
delays due to turn around (for ACKs), overheads due to the preamble and
headers, etc. 802.11g has a further requirement for protecting
existing 802.11b
Nick Buraglio wrote:
Some of the centrally managed stuff can push over 30mbps real
world, the Meru and Trapeze stuff supposedly can. This is of course
using something like iperf that just moves packets. Adding a B
client will of course slow it down.
these guys don't have anything that
Chris Buechler wrote:
Bennett wrote:
Perhaps I should troll the m0n0wall list... :)
go for it. You'd still get me replying to your messages, with the
same stuff mostly. :)
Chris won't be the only one, either. :-)
But it'll never change to be a full blown hard drive install, and
Bennett wrote:
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking up where m0n0wall left off.
However, this fork of m0n0wall is a bit unnerving. Yes, I know
Bradley Van Peursem wrote:
http://www.mini-box.com/s.nl/sc.8/category.19/it.A/id.383/.f
We have many of these in the field and like the overall design best of
any we have tried. Extra power to keep the units running cool, and the
outlet end is small enough that it doesn't take up 2-3 outlets
Bill Plein wrote:
All-
I have a 3-Ethernet WRAP platform in a standard small aluminum case
also purchased from PC-Engines.
While I wasn't interested in using this platform for Wireless when I
bought it (just pfsense or m0n0wall), I am now interested in adding it
as an access point to my
VAP functionality available from some Atheros licensees for linux.
(like us.)
Sam Leffler will eventually release it for FreeBSD. See http://
people.freebsd.org/~sam/BSDCan2005.pdf
starting around slide 22.
The VAP code isn't in the FreeBSD-current tree (yet), so you're
highly
actually, these days, its madwifi which 'inherets' from the freebsd
(-6.0) driver.
And most of what you can do via 'athstats' is available via 'ifconfig'.
jim
On Aug 15, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
Yes, they share a common source path.
Scott
On 8/15/05, analyzerx [EMAIL
27 matches
Mail list logo
