Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:14:01 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> Cc: Goran Lowkrantz <goran.lowkrantz@ismobile.com>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: foo; no such thing as a "dual-nic" atom firewall Message-ID: <AANLkTin0pP3CqWeQixzuJwreyj=uYcW5TO8Z7RJ3L_qB@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20101125012006.GA4263@thought.org> References: <20101124014312.GB12000@thought.org> <D927A1DBFBD39323236ADDEC@172.16.2.199> <20101125012006.GA4263@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> wrote: > Anybody? > Gary, in case you didn't catch it the pcengines link already given to you is low power setup with comsumption comparable or better than an Atom. It's also been tested with FreeBSD and pfSense according to the manufacturers site. There's nothing wrong with Atom, but different models have different chipsets/NIC's and there may be a possibility of unsupported hardware. Perhaps it might be easier for you to go with a known commodity. pfSense documentation is offered on their website as well as community support. I suggest you start there. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin0pP3CqWeQixzuJwreyj=uYcW5TO8Z7RJ3L_qB>