From owner-freebsd-questions  Fri Oct 27 11:35:39 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.speedera.com (unknown [64.242.144.230])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84E337B479
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salesnb1 (ph-109.speedera.com [10.40.10.109]) by mail.speedera.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id 473XNAWH; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:36:26 -0700
Message-ID: <0e7701c04046$bb615360$6d0a280a@speedera.com>
From: "Ras-Sol" <ras-sol@usa.net>
To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>,
	"Ken Bolingbroke" <hacker@bolingbroke.com>
Cc: <questions@freebsd.org>
References: <14841.13437.679109.454888@guru.mired.org>
Subject: Re: System Recommendation
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:50:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Well, I've got a 486dx2-50 with 12mb doing NAT for my house.

At first I had it set up doing PPPoE on the DSL line-
And it performed fine.

But- I did notice that now that I have a static IP, and the box is simply
doing NAT (with no PPP).
The connection is noticeaby faster-
(smoother, less "blocky", if that makes any sense)

However, the box was barely being utilized even with PPP running, so I think
the "blockyness" was more on their PPP server's end.

Anyway- any old 486 should be cool-
And 12mb is enough for a few VTs, sshd, ppp, and a couple perl scripts
running in the bg-
--

-sex:blood:heaven-

 AIM: IMFDUP
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To: Ken Bolingbroke <hacker@bolingbroke.com>
Cc: <questions@freebsd.org>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: System Recommendation


> Ken Bolingbroke writes:
> > For low traffic?  I have a '386 with 20MB RAM doing exactly that,
running
> > web, mail, DNS, and NAT in front of several other machines.  It performs
> > adequately, at least. :-)
>
> Yup. For the gateway box to be become the bottleneck, it has to be
> incapable of shuffling data fast enough to fill your internet
> connection. If you've got enough bandwidth for that to be possible
> with anything FreeBSD will run on, then you've got more bandwidth than
> you need for a low traffic site.
>
> <mike
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Tim Erlin wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to put a FreeBSD box running NAT and ipfw in
> > > front of a low traffic web/mail server (also FreeBSD)
> > > and 1-2 other machines (win98). Cost is a major
> > > factor, so the real question is: how low can I go and
> > > still get adequate performance...PII, P, 486????
> > > --Tim
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
> > > http://im.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
> >
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message