Originally posted by droidhacker
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linksys Begins Shipping The WRT1900AC
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View Postpfsense appears to be a bsd-based competitor to the likes of openwrt/ddwrt?
Originally posted by pfSenseThis project started in 2004 as a fork of the m0n0wall project, but focused towards full PC installations rather than the embedded hardware focus of m0n0wall.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raven3x7 View PostDid you really read the specs? In any case it is not ancient and it's also far more powerful than most home routers(software wise).
2.4 GHz 802.11N.
600 MHz.
What is this? 2005?
Software wise, who cares? Openwrt or don't waste my time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Serge View PostI wouldn't describe it as intended to compete with OpenWRT or DD-WRT. From https://www.pfsense.org/about-pfsense/index.html:
As far as being "focused towards full PC installations rather than ... etc." -- the right way to read that is "limited to full PC installations".
This limitation is, of course, caused by their use of BSD. As nice as BSD can be, it really doesn't draw many hardware vendors, so the actual hardware support is really lacking there.
Frankly, I can't see a single thing that pfsense claims to do that can't be done just as easily with openwrt. Openwrt, of course, has far far greater hardware support, and can run pretty much anything that depends on Linux.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raven3x7 View PostDid you really read the specs? In any case it is not ancient and it's also far more powerful than most home routers(software wise).
Comment
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostJust because it doesn't NAME its competitors, does not mean that it doesn't have any. Their description is basically that they are targeting the same as openwrt and ddwrt. The only real difference that I can tell from their descriptions, is that its on BSD rather than Linux.
As far as being "focused towards full PC installations rather than ... etc." -- the right way to read that is "limited to full PC installations".
This limitation is, of course, caused by their use of BSD. As nice as BSD can be, it really doesn't draw many hardware vendors, so the actual hardware support is really lacking there.
Frankly, I can't see a single thing that pfsense claims to do that can't be done just as easily with openwrt. Openwrt, of course, has far far greater hardware support, and can run pretty much anything that depends on Linux.
Comment
-
Originally posted by torsionbar28 View PostLol! But seriously, I wonder why they thought it needed 1.2 Ghz, 128 MB flash, and 256 MB ram? DD-WRT Mega, the largest one, runs marvelously on a WRT54GS with just ~200 Mhz, 8 MB of flash and 32 MB of RAM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostWell it boils down to the fact that BSD is ideologically more free and better if you don't like the toenail eating RMS cult. Some people valuate capitalism over communism.
As a *capitalist*, I'll choose GPL to protect my own source code, because the purpose of sharing the code is to obtain free labor in advancing the development of that code. I certainly don't want to share code for free to my competitors without getting anything back in exchange for it.
BSD is the communist license, because you are giving your hard work away for free and not getting anything valuable in exchange for it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ansla View PostHow well does lighttpd serving ownCloud run on that WRT54GS? Because it runs like crap on a WNDR3800 with 680 MHz, 16MB flash and 128MB RAM. I managed to squeeze lighttpd and its dependencies in the 16MB flash, but owncloud itself is on an external drive along with the data it's hosting. The specs of WRT1900AC sound a lot closer to what it's required to host ownCloud, though probably still not enough.
I generally wouldn't consider any of these network appliances, including WRT1900AC, to be for much more than channelling data. Leave the heavy processing to equipment that is suited for it.
... although I do like the idea of having USB3 and SATA on the router, paying an extra $200 for that just isn't worth it. I'd much rather just pick up a cheap NAS. You can get an empty 2-bay NAS for $90, which puts you ahead of the game, since you get TWO SATA ports, an enclosure, and a power adapter. As far as the utility of having SATA on the device, it certainly doesn't save you any complexity in the system to use that over an NAS. In the end, it really isn't just a difference of $110, because you still need a powered enclosure for the SATA disk (which only holds *one* disk). Whether it communicates with the router using SATA, USB, or Ethernet is irrelevant.
Last edited by droidhacker; 11 April 2014, 10:17 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View Postowncloud does look pretty heavy. Lots of encryption and data processing. I'd say that you really need to use something that is more of.... an actual server for that.
I generally wouldn't consider any of these network appliances, including WRT1900AC, to be for much more than channelling data. Leave the heavy processing to equipment that is suited for it.
... although I do like the idea of having USB3 and SATA on the router, paying an extra $200 for that just isn't worth it. I'd much rather just pick up a cheap NAS. You can get an empty 2-bay NAS for $90, which puts you ahead of the game, since you get TWO SATA ports, an enclosure, and a power adapter. As far as the utility of having SATA on the device, it certainly doesn't save you any complexity in the system to use that over an NAS. In the end, it really isn't just a difference of $110, because you still need a powered enclosure for the SATA disk (which only holds *one* disk). Whether it communicates with the router using SATA, USB, or Ethernet is irrelevant.
http://www.canadacomputers.com/produ...item_id=058795- Performance: NFS is fast, but CIFS and AFP require more CPU power. These are underpowered even if they don't do anything else but serve files.
- QoS: I mean this on whole system level. File serving uses so much resources the routing will slow down.
- File system support: usually only FAT32. A file server should use ZFS or Btrfs or something similar nowadays.
- File system security: you might want AD & ACL & more advanced stuff and not a FAT32 disk with full r/w access on filesystem level
- User level security: usually a separate page in the web gui. Terrible. How are the passwords stored? No idea. Maybe plaintext
- Backdoors: Many routers have hidden backdoors.
- HW security: WEP/WPA/WPA2 are all broken. Takes less than 2 minutes to break in via Wifi. I don't like this
- Scalability: The routers don't scale to larger home networks. They usually argue that it's good enough if you want to r/w a fat32 volume to everyone. I don't like this. Buy a NAS instead or use esata/usb/firewire disks. USB3 is fast enough.
- HW design: Indeed hot-plug might not work, how about RAID, powering disks with external PSU, and many bad ideas
I recommend this for home networks: ASRock C2550D4I Mini ITX & Intel Avoton C2550 integrated CPU. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157419
If you want ultimate security, set up Kerberos on RPi and so on.
Comment
Comment