sprocket i/o - Latest Comments in pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

Criggie — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:52:44 -0000

I agree with the other commenters - pfSense is awesome, but that power comes at the cost of increased resource demand.

Remember those people who installed win95 on their win3.1 machines and complained it was slow ? Same problem, same cause.

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

ninjakn0m — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:08:43 -0000

it runs perfectly as a router of 1 100mbit networks and 1 gigabit and also wireless network with captive portal, very stable indeed, and on just 64mb of ram. Since i updated to 1.0-BETA2, i 've been using the bandwidth queues also(altq). Of course i don't run any other fancy services like squid or whatever. yes it works great.

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

GeekGod — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:06:36 -0000

pfSense's suggested minimum memory is 128 megs. Not very much ram in this day and age. It was never intended to run "well" on 64 megs.

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

Michel — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:33:33 -0000

pfSense's memory usage sounds as bad as Nokia 770's "Internet Tablet 2005 Software Edition" (sic) Linux distribution. Device has 64 MB of RAM, starting up new applications takes a long time and the OOM killer gets activated at around 4 applications running.

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

GeekGod — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:40:55 -0000

Newer versions of pfSense's GUI is 18* faster. Most pages load in ~3 seconds. Also, a number of DHCP client bugs where fixed. Please try this image: http://www.pfsense.com/~sullri...

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

Olof — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:07:53 -0000

Why not just try OpenBSD and pf?

Re: pfSense: The Folger’s Taste Test

Dallas — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:07:44 -0000

What are you talking about? You don't like anything with a coffee taste...