Re: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
Bill Marquette wrote: Not sure why, but this seems to be a very popular feature request these days, I can count at least 3 different requests for this in the last week. No need to file a feature request for this feature unless the code that comes out of the hackathon doesn't do what you want (not directed at you Chris :)). My bad - I thought I had originally subscribed to pfsense-discussion, but it turned out that I'd not (only support). Otherwise, I likely would have seen this request roll by in the past weeks. Thanks for the update, Bill! RB
Re: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
Not sure why, but this seems to be a very popular feature request these days, I can count at least 3 different requests for this in the last week. No need to file a feature request for this feature unless the code that comes out of the hackathon doesn't do what you want (not directed at you Chris :)). --Bill On 7/27/05, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/27/05, Randy B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not certain I understand what you're talking about - the only > > load-balancing I can find described for CARP (net.inet.carp.arpbalance) > > only does incoming load-balancing at L2; that's according to the latest > > OpenBSD carp(4) man page I can find. > > nevermind, you're right. > > you should file a feature request ticket on that at > http://cvstrac.pfsense.org/ > > -cmb >
Re: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
On 7/27/05, Randy B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not certain I understand what you're talking about - the only > load-balancing I can find described for CARP (net.inet.carp.arpbalance) > only does incoming load-balancing at L2; that's according to the latest > OpenBSD carp(4) man page I can find. nevermind, you're right. you should file a feature request ticket on that at http://cvstrac.pfsense.org/ -cmb
Re: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
Chris Buechler wrote: CARP does L3. At this point it doesn't detect dead hosts so a percentage of your requests will fail if one of the boxes dies, but that's being worked on. I'm not certain I understand what you're talking about - the only load-balancing I can find described for CARP (net.inet.carp.arpbalance) only does incoming load-balancing at L2; that's according to the latest OpenBSD carp(4) man page I can find. Do we do it differently in pfSense? If so, I'm curious how! Essentially, I've a routed network with a lot of high-load clients that I want to balance over a virtual gateway IP without being on the same segment as these core routers. If I can do that currently (which the man page seems to contraindicate), I'm perfectly happy. As far as the apcupsd goes, I certainly understand that pfSense is relatively safe against power outages, but most machines on my network are UPS-ed as well, and if nothing else, it'd be kinda nice to be able to monitor how long I have left on battery, line voltages, etc. Fun stuff like that we Geeks do at home and make our friends/inlaws roll their eyes. Thanks for the responses, guys!
Re: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
On 7/27/05, Craig FALCONER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't comment on the load balancing, but pfsense will not be damaged by a > random powerout unless you're in the process of saving a config change right > then. If the power is out, you won't be reconfiguring your router :) > > That may not hold for packages like squid... Though the worst that could > happen is loss of some open files in the cache. > actually unlike m0n0wall, it runs from a real filesystem, not everything in RAM. It can lose data from an improper shutdown (highly unlikely though). -cmb
RE: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
I can't comment on the load balancing, but pfsense will not be damaged by a random powerout unless you're in the process of saving a config change right then. If the power is out, you won't be reconfiguring your router :) That may not hold for packages like squid... Though the worst that could happen is loss of some open files in the cache. -Original Message- From: Randy B [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:16 p.m. To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions I really enjoy pfSense; it's an incredible project, and as I learn more about using/administering *BSD systems, I hope to be able to contribute more than my opinion. ;-) That said, I'd love to see a couple of bits of functionality added, but am really not sure how to go about it. The first is an L3 load balancer, like LVS (Linux Virtual Server, that is, not Logical Volume System). I know CARP does L2 balancing, but most of my needs in incoming balancing lie outside of my local segment. The second would be apcupsd - my home system is already hooked up to a UPS, but I've no viable way to monitor/configure it. It would be oh-so-nice to be able to tell it to shut down gracefully with 2 minutes left on the UPS. Comments? Rotten fruit? Pointers to where to start BMOFP? All appreciated! RB
Re: [pfSense-discussion] A few questions
On 7/27/05, Randy B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That said, I'd love to see a couple of bits of functionality added, but > am really not sure how to go about it. The first is an L3 load > balancer, CARP does L3. At this point it doesn't detect dead hosts so a percentage of your requests will fail if one of the boxes dies, but that's being worked on. -cmb
