Ahh, okay! Thanks for the help!
I <3 pfSense :-)
Rgds,
--
Pandu E Poluan
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:24, Chris Buechler wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
>> Well, I just divide the servers in the private network, half using the 1st
>> pfSense as the Def.Gatewa
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Well, I just divide the servers in the private network, half using the 1st
> pfSense as the Def.Gateway, the other half using the 2nd pfSense.
>
>
No reason to do that, just ugly, keep one ingress and egress point where you
can.
Well, I just divide the servers in the private network, half using the 1st
pfSense as the Def.Gateway, the other half using the 2nd pfSense.
I'm not really sure about the underlying system in terms of Make/Model; it's
in my Cloud Providers datacenter.
I'm guaranteed, though, to have the following
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am planning to deploy pfSense, mostly for firewall and NAT, on my
> production Cloud. It is based on VMware.
>
> What do you recommend:
> + 1 big multi-CPU pfSense VM, or
> + 2 smaller single-CPU pfSense VMs
>
> A question:
> Will
Hello,
I am planning to deploy pfSense, mostly for firewall and NAT, on my
production Cloud. It is based on VMware.
What do you recommend:
+ 1 big multi-CPU pfSense VM, or
+ 2 smaller single-CPU pfSense VMs
A question:
Will 2 smaller VMs provide higher throughput than a single big VM?
And some
