[pfSense] is pfSense the right choice?

Chris Buechler cmb at pfsense.org
Thu May 3 14:20:32 EDT 2012

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Noam Birnbaum
<noam at maccentricsolutions.com> wrote:
> Good call, David --
> They current have dual WAN -- 40/40 WiMAX and 50/10 cable.  I expect that as they grow these pipes will at least double.
> As for their *expectations* -- they are a web development startup in San Francisco, so… they have very high expectations.  They'll swallow whatever bandwidth
> they can get.  They bark when a Youtube video stutters once.  I need an extremely solid solution for them.  I would go Cisco except no experience with it.

Another person sold on a name rather than the actual product. :) You
won't get the functionality you're looking for from Cisco. Though you
won't get exactly what you're looking for with pfSense either,
specifically "provide bandwidth management and monitoring on a
per-user, per-application basis". The best bet there on Cisco and
pfSense is exporting Netflow to a collector. We have some built in
options in packages. Similar on your other QoS point in that you'll
have difficulty differentiating at least the streaming video part,
that just looks like any other HTTP traffic in that regard. VoIP and
video conferencing generally no issue. But no diff there from Cisco,
and we actually make it easier.

More information about the List mailing list