2017-03-14 - Re: Free access only captive portal performance

Header Data

From: José Borges <jo***s@algardata.pt>
Message Hash: 147c8bb283e3a123e32e1e75571ebfda5f84f569cf9862e31d1551fe477f9c89
Message ID: <ccbcdff9-0ad4-4d03-a25c-be9c71b7aa99@grasehotspot.org>
Reply To: <678f24f0-5918-43b3-b870-f88e7ba7688e@grasehotspot.org>
UTC Datetime: 2017-03-14 02:14:05 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:14:05 -0700

Raw message 


You better use css, like: style="display:none;" on the <div> to hide it :D 
its that easy.


TOS captive with button to signup for free wifi (actual connect button is 
hidden below a huge blank <div> space.. betting they wont scroll down)


segunda-feira, 13 de Março de 2017 às 22:25:56 UTC, Michael escreveu:
>
> First off, big thanks to Tim and the developers behind Grase hotspot as 
> well as the community here! This is my first time posting but I have been 
> scouring the group for a while and it's been a huge help getting through 
> roadblocks.
>
> I have successfully built a working Grase setup with an old PC with Ubuntu 
> desktop 14 and a basic DD-WRT flashed router setup in AP mode which follows 
> the following process for users:
>
>
>    1. WIFI connect
>    2. TOS captive with button to signup for free wifi (actual connect 
>    button is hidden below a huge blank <div> space.. betting they wont scroll 
>    down)
>    3. Button re-directs to allowed domain for a external Mailchimp 
>    newsletter form signup
>    4. Back to captive page with anchor link to connect button after 
>    successful single opt-in.
>    5. Connect to internet
>    
>
> My question is concerning what may be the bare minimum performance to run 
> the above steps and no any additional authentication? Would using a Pi3 be 
> acceptable for 50-100 simultaneous users?  I attempted to use a simple 
> NoDogSplash setup on a router but was unsuccessful in getting the above 
> process to work, so using a separate PC for just a free wifi portal was my 
> only avenue but I would like to stay dirt cheap on the PC if possible.  I'm 
> not very versed in networking lore so it may be the case where the router 
> is what generally needs to "handle" the user load, and not the Grase 
> server, but I thought I would ask.
>
> Thank you!!
>

Thread