On 14-10-23 04:29 PM, Chris L wrote:
I’m not asking what the changes are - I’m asking if these boxes require a
special version of pfSense for maximum performance.
I can't answer that with 100% certainty, but I believe the packaging is
tweaked slightly. Whether you call that a "special version" or not is
up to you... AFAIK the kernel is the same, and the pfSense layered code
is the same. Netgate may add *more* stuff on top of that, I'm not sure
- I don't even own one right now.
If it’s just sysctl values then it’s not possible to keep it secret. sysctl
-a, sysctl -a, diff
Granted... my point stands, it's not the secrecy, it's the time taken to
match the values to the hardware. No two systems (models) are identical.
If it’s a custom kernel, etc, then I have to take waiting for netgate to issue
patches into consideration. Now and in the future.
Perhaps you've forgotten that Netgate/ESF is the pfSense project
*sponsor* and that all/most (?) of the core developers work for
Netgate/ESF? I don't think you'll be waiting very long. I wouldn't be
at all surprised if the Netgate build gets updated first, in fact. And
I do *not* mean that they deliberately wait before releasing patches for
the generic pfSense build, I just mean that I would expect the Netgate
update to be available +/- 15 minutes compared to the generic pfSense
update.
I get that Jim rubs a lot of people the wrong way (myself included), but
I don't understand the vitriol and/or suspicion directed at Netgate,
which, after all, is who's paying to keep pfSense free.
Jim: maybe the Netgate/ESF branding needs to get splashed all over
pfSense, to drive home the point? It may be unclear to newbies what the
relationship between Netgate, ESF, and pfSense is. Even I'm a little
bit vague on the finer points.
--
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
