Is it possible to get the hardware limitations removed for the home version? Or have they been removed in V18?
This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Is it possible to get the hardware limitations removed for the home version? Or have they been removed in V18?
The only times I've seen large organisations using PFSense is for internal VLAN segregation, and where QoS is required - not for permitter use - they normally seem to leave that to the commercial side of things.
Open Source has been a big no-no for a lot of the companies I support - it's the fear of the source code being available and therefore being examined by hackers for exploits - with closed source you have to take a longer route to find them.
And agree, the problem is that most things at home have been left in the default setup, and that usually is not hardened enough...how many home users would just have an any>any rule, rather than just allow what's needed and block everything else?
Any>Any kind of defeats the object of having a firewall - and a lot of people while they are happy to control what comes in, they forget about securing what goes out.
Tim Grantham
Enterprise Architect & Business owner
Flyncalpoly said:No clue why you guys argue that the limitation is acceptable; it’s not for me.
It isn't about limitations. It's about "is it sufficient to satisfactorily do the job I need doing".
Every solution has limitations. You can always specify more cpu, more memory, more bandwidth etc. If Sophos limited you to 100 CPUs and 1TB memory would you be happy or would it still be 'limited'? If you were going to provide an XG solution to a customer would you specify the biggest possible (at enormous cost) because it has the least limitations? Of course not, you specify what will do the job.
Will the free solution that Sophos offer do the job for a home user? Yes. That's what matters!
rfcat_vk I seem to remember you stating on another post, that it is not the brute power but the speed that is most important when choosing a CPU, as mathematical calculations are not the cornerstone requirement of the software, just quick responses.
I am currently looking out for a micro-pc with 2 x Intel NICs with a Team Red (AMD) CPU, as most are Intel.
XG & UTM Architect (Systems: XG v18 & UTM 9.7 - Virtual, HW & SW)
Curious enough to take it apart, skilled enough to put it back together, Clever enough to hide the extra parts when I'm Done!
Hi Argo,
i don' think I have said anything different in this thread?
Remember the main part of the firewall is establishing the start and ending of the connection, once the connection has been validated then you need a very fast processor to shift the incoming packets to the next stage of the firewall configuration.
ian
XG115W - v20 GA - Home
XG on VM 8 - v20 GA
If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.
Hi Mike,
that CPU has 2 real and 2 threads, so you could expect around equivalent of 3 cores, but get 3 snorts (most time one less than CPUs). It will work very well.
Ian
XG115W - v20 GA - Home
XG on VM 8 - v20 GA
If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.
Hi
Food for thought indeed, just got to consider the power consumption vs performance etc.
Flyncalpoly said:With the limitations I wouldn’t offer it as an option to home based clients. With being unable to fully test the software to its full capacity no I wouldn’t spec out to my business clients. Again it’s a choice the company makes.
I'm sure Sophos will be sad to lose your business.
