Thanks for the input Greg. Since I grabbed 2 of those 4 port embedded systems, I may do 1 smoothwall and 1 pfsense and see which one handles the load with less problems. I've never used anything other than hacked DD-WRT/tomato routers, so I'm hoping to have more options available to use without any slowdown since the boxes have a lot more horsepower and memory. I looked into running DD-WRT x86, but both pfsense and smoothwall seemed to have more to offer.
lopaka --- On Wed, 8/26/09, Greg Sevart <ad...@xfury.net> wrote: From: Greg Sevart <ad...@xfury.net> Subject: Re: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 7:44 AM I've been using pfSense for 6 months or so, and absolutely love it. The rules engine reminds me of more enterprise-class offerings, which coming from a Cisco/CheckPoint world, I find very appealing. It even supports stateful failover using CARP. I can't speak to application-level filtering capabilities, but it has a very robust rules engine that I know can use a schedule. It uses ALTQ for QoS, which from my understanding is one of the very best implementations available. There are a fairly large number of plugins to extend base functionality. > -----Original Message----- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Robert Martin Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:49 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall > > Anyone tried both of these and have any comparative info. Smoothwalls > been around for a while and has some good plugins so will be my top > pick unless there are some reasons pfsense would be better. > > The firewall box I'm going to put together has to have > > 1) good QOS > 2) handles VOIP well > 3) handles P2P (torrent/emule) throttles correctly > 4) good blacklist plugins > 5) NIDS capability > > Plus's would be > > 1) good filtering capability > 2) timed rules > 3) logging website use > > Any feedback on either appreciated. > > lopaka
