no more localhost name ?

[Patrick Lamaiziere]

Hello,

(fresh 9.1-STABLE/amd64)

Here localhost or 127.0.0.1 is not resolved anymore. I can see twith
tcpdump hat a DNS request is sent to dns server.

This is something new because a test case used to test name
resolution on a home made application now fails.

$ host localhost
Host localhost not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

$ host 127.0.0.1
Host 1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

The box uses dhclient.

/etc/hosts
::1 localhost localhost.my.domain
127.0.0.1   localhost localhost.my.domain

/etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by resolvconf
search univ-rennes1.fr
nameserver 129.20.128.2
nameserver 129.20.128.39
nameserver 129.20.128.49

/etc/nsswitch.conf
group: compat
group_compat: nis
hosts: files dns
networks: files
passwd: compat
passwd_compat: nis
shells: files
services: compat
services_compat: nis
protocols: files
rpc: files

The configuration looks good... Any idea?

Thanks regards.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

new backup server file system options

[yudi v]

Hi all,

I am building a new freebsd fileserver to use for backups, will be using 2
disk raid mirroring in a HP microserver n40l.
I have gone through some of the documentation and would like to know what
file systems to choose.

According to the docs, ufs is suggested for the system partitions but
someone on the freebsd irc channel suggested using zfs for the rootfs as
well

Are there any disadvantages of using zfs for the whole system rather than
going with ufs for the system files and zfs for the user data?

-- 
Kind regards,
Yudi
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

uname -r output values?

[Fbsd8]

When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible 
to expect?


So far I have this list.

Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
Where y = number 1 through 9

X.X-BETAy
X.X-RCy
X.X-RELEASE
X.X-RELEASE-py
X.X-PRERELEASE
X.X-CURRENT
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: uname -r output values?

[Fleuriot Damien]

mybsd dam  ~
$ uname -r
8.2-STABLE



On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8  wrote:

> When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to 
> expect?
> 
> So far I have this list.
> 
> Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
> Where y = number 1 through 9
> 
> X.X-BETAy
> X.X-RCy
> X.X-RELEASE
> X.X-RELEASE-py
> X.X-PRERELEASE
> X.X-CURRENT
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

ZFS info WAS: new backup server file system options

[Paul Kraus]

On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:49 AM, yudi v wrote:

> I am building a new freebsd fileserver to use for backups, will be using 2
> disk raid mirroring in a HP microserver n40l.
> I have gone through some of the documentation and would like to know what
> file systems to choose.
> 
> According to the docs, ufs is suggested for the system partitions but
> someone on the freebsd irc channel suggested using zfs for the rootfs as
> well
> 
> Are there any disadvantages of using zfs for the whole system rather than
> going with ufs for the system files and zfs for the user data?

First a disclaimer, I have been working with Solaris since 1995 and 
managed lots of data under ZFS, I have only been working with FreeBSD for about 
the past 6 months.

UFS is clearly very stable and solid, but to get redundancy you need to 
use a separate "volume manager".

ZFS is a completely different way of thinking about managing storage 
(not just a filesystem). I prefer ZFS for a number of reasons:

1) End to end data integrity through checksums. With the advent of 1 TB plus 
drives, the uncorrectable error rate (typically  10^-14 or 10^-15) means that 
over the life of any drive you *are* now likely to run into uncorrectable 
errors. This means that traditional volume managers (which rely on the drive 
reporting an bad reads and writes) cannot detect these errors and bad data will 
be returned to the application.

2) Simplicity of management. Since the volume management and filesystem layers 
have been combined, you don't have to manage each separately.

3) Flexibility of storage. Once you build a zpool, the filesystems that reside 
on it share the storage of the entire zpool. This means you don't have to 
decide how much space to commit to a given filesystem at creation. It also 
means that all the filesystems residing in that one zpool share the performance 
of all the drives in that zpool.

4) Specific to booting off of a ZFS, if you move drives around (as I tend to do 
in at least one of my lab systems) the bootloader can still find the root 
filesystem under ZFS as it refers to it by zfs device name, not physical drive 
device name. Yes, you can tell the bootloader where to find root if you move 
it, but zfs does that automatically.

5) Zero performance penalty snapshots. The only cost to snapshots is the space 
necessary to hold the data. I have managed systems with over 100,000 snapshots.

I am running two production, one lab, and a bunch of VBox VMs all with 
ZFS. The only issue I have seen is one I have also seen under Solaris with ZFS. 
Certain kinds of hardware layer faults will cause the zfs management tools (the 
zpool and zfs commands) to hang waiting on a blocking I/O that will never 
return. The data continuos to be available, you just can't manage the zfs 
infrastructure until the device issues are cleared. For example, if you remove 
a USB drive that hosts a mounted ZFS, then any attempt to manage that ZFS 
device will hang (zpool export -f  hangs until a reboot).

Previously I had been running (at home) a fileserver under OpenSolaris 
using ZFS and it saved my data when I had multiple drive failures. At a certain 
client we had a 45 TB configuration built on top of 120 750GB drives. We had 
multiple redundancy and could survive a complete failure of 2 of the 5 disk 
enclosures (yes, we tested this in pre-production).

There are a number of good writeups on how setup a FreeBSD system to 
boot off of ZFS, I like this one the best 
http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE , but I do the 
zpool/zfs configuration slightly differently (based on some hard learned 
lessons on Solaris). I am writing up my configuration (and why I do it this 
way), but it is not ready yet.

Make sure you look at all the information here: 
http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS , keeping in mind that lots of it was written 
before FreeBSD 9. I would NOT use ZFS, especially for booting, prior to release 
9 of FreeBSD. Some of the reason for this is the bugs that were fixed in zpool 
version 28 (included in release 9).

--
Paul Kraus
Deputy Technical Director, LoneStarCon 3
Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: ath0 + wpa/wpa2 + apple airport extreme = no joy.

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

Please try -9 on your Soekris. :-)



Adrian


On 19 December 2012 15:32, Christopher Sean Hilton  wrote:
> I posted on a similar subject last year but in the end it turned out
> to be irrelevant. I'm trying to get the combination of:
>
>  a Soekris Net4511,
>  FreeBSD 8-STABLE from Dec 2011,
>  an Atheros AR5BMB-44 wifi interface (identified as AR5212 in dmesg),
>  an Apple Airport Extreme (about 2010 vintage) with WPA/WPA2 security,
>
> to all play nicely. To start with I plan to look at the change logs
> for the wpa_supplicant suite to see if there were changes from last
> December to now. I will probably just upgrade this box to a later
> vintage of 8-STABLE. Still, hit me with a cluebat if this problem got
> fixed between December, 2011 and now.
>
> Anyhow, no matter what I've done, the result is the same:
>
>  The atheros/wlan combo associates to my wireless network;
>
>  The dhcp client on the soekris sends a request to the dhcp
>  server. The dhcp server receives the negotiation and tries to
>  offer a lease but the soekris never receives a reply;
>
> I've confirmed this by running tcpdump on the dhcp server where I've
> seen the requests arrive with the atheros' mac address and I've seen
> the replies go back out of the dhcp server but either the atheros
> isn't listening or the Airport Extreme isn't forwarding the traffic. I
> haven't sniffed the wifi to see if the Airport Extreme just isn't
> forwarding the reply or if the atheros isn't receiving it properly.
>
> I can convince this combination of hardware to work if I change the
> network security on the airport extreme from WPA/WPA2 to None.
>
> The configuration that I feel should make the atheros work with the
> Airport Extreme works just fine with my 2010 vintage Airport
> Express. The Express and the Extreme are basically creating the same
> network. The Extreme is on 2.4GHz channel 11, the Express on 2.4GHz 1.
> The reason I have both so you are always near an access point.
>
> I can get the atheros to work with WPA2 on my Mifi 4082.
>
> As a new data point, the combination of an Intel 2200bg + WPA works
> with the Airport Extreme.
>
> I've posted my configs after my signature if you want to look and I
> can provide more information if you need it.
>
> My hope in posting this is to try and figure out what's up with the
> atheros or the Airport Extreme that it isn't working in this
> configuration. If anyone has an atheros card working with WPA/WPA2 and
> an Apple Airport Extreme I'd love any assistance you'd be willing to
> give me with the configuration.
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
> --
>
> -- Chris
>
> 
>   "There will be an answer, Let it be."
>e: chris -at- vindaloo -dot- com
>
>  This is the hacked /etc/rc.conf to work with the Intel card:
>
>  ...
>  wpa_supplicant_enable="YES"
>  ## wlans_ath0="wlan0"
>  wlans_iwi0="wlan0"
>  ifconfig_wlan0="WPA DHCP"
>  ...
>
>
> Here's my abridged /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf:
>
>  ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant
>  ctrl_interface_group=0
>
>  ## Airport Extreme
>
>  network={
>  ssid="FooBarBaz"
>  bssid=f8:1e:df:xx:xx:xx
>  psk=""
>  proto=RSN
>  key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
>  pairwise=CCMP TKIP
>  group=CCMP TKIP
>  priority=12
>  }
>
>  ## Airport Express
>
>  network={
>  ssid="FooBarBaz"
>  bssid=00:1f:f3:xx:xx:xx
>  psk=""
>  proto=RSN
>  key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
>  pairwise=CCMP TKIP
>  group=CCMP TKIP
>  priority=10
>  }
>
>  ## Mifi 4082
>
>  network={
>  ssid="FooBarBaz-Mobile"
>  psk=""
>  priority=0
>  }
>
> Finally, here's the result of ifconfig on wlan0/iwi0 associated and
> working with the Airport Extreme:
>
>  ryloth chris $ ifconfig iwi0
>  iwi0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 
> 2290
>  ether 00:15:00:xx:xx:xx
>  media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet autoselect mode 11g
>  status: associated
>  ryloth chris $ ifconfig wlan0
>  wlan0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 
> 1500
>  ether 00:15:00:xx:xx:xx
>  inet 10.59.145.87 netmask 0xfe00 broadcast 10.59.145.255
>  media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet autoselect mode 11g
>  status: associated
>  ssid FooBarBaz channel 11 (2462 MHz 11g) bssid f8:1e:df:xx:xx:xx
>  country US authmode WPA2/802.11i privacy ON deftxkey UNDEF
>  TKIP 3:128-bit txpower 0 bmiss 24 scanvalid 60 protmode CTS wme
>  roaming MANUAL
>
> ___
> freebsd-wirel...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless

Re: ZFS info WAS: new backup server file system options

[Arthur Chance]

On 12/21/12 14:06, Paul Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:49 AM, yudi v wrote:


I am building a new freebsd fileserver to use for backups, will be using 2
disk raid mirroring in a HP microserver n40l.
I have gone through some of the documentation and would like to know what
file systems to choose.

According to the docs, ufs is suggested for the system partitions but
someone on the freebsd irc channel suggested using zfs for the rootfs as
well

Are there any disadvantages of using zfs for the whole system rather than
going with ufs for the system files and zfs for the user data?


First a disclaimer, I have been working with Solaris since 1995 and 
managed
> lots of data under ZFS, I have only been working with FreeBSD for 
about the past

> 6 months.


UFS is clearly very stable and solid, but to get redundancy you need to 
use

> a separate "volume manager".

Slight correction here - you don't need a volume manager (as I 
understand the term), you'd use the GEOM subsystem, specifically gmirror 
in this case. See "man gmirror" for details



ZFS is a completely different way of thinking about managing storage 
(not

> just a filesystem). I prefer ZFS for a number of reasons:


1) End to end data integrity through checksums. With the advent of 1 TB plus
> drives, the uncorrectable error rate (typically  10^-14 or 10^-15) 
means that
> over the life of any drive you *are* now likely to run into 
uncorrectable errors.
> This means that traditional volume managers (which rely on the drive 
reporting an
> bad reads and writes) cannot detect these errors and bad data will be 
returned to

> the application.


2) Simplicity of management. Since the volume management and filesystem layers

> have been combined, you don't have to manage each separately.


3) Flexibility of storage. Once you build a zpool, the filesystems that reside
> on it share the storage of the entire zpool. This means you don't 
have to decide
> how much space to commit to a given filesystem at creation. It also 
means that all
> the filesystems residing in that one zpool share the performance of 
all the drives

> in that zpool.


4) Specific to booting off of a ZFS, if you move drives around (as I tend to do 
in
> at least one of my lab systems) the bootloader can still find the 
root filesystem
> under ZFS as it refers to it by zfs device name, not physical drive 
device name.
> Yes, you can tell the bootloader where to find root if you move it, 
but zfs does

> that automatically.


5) Zero performance penalty snapshots. The only cost to snapshots is the space
> necessary to hold the data. I have managed systems with over 100,000 
snapshots.


I am running two production, one lab, and a bunch of VBox VMs all with 
ZFS.
> The only issue I have seen is one I have also seen under Solaris with 
ZFS. Certain
> kinds of hardware layer faults will cause the zfs management tools 
(the zpool and
> zfs commands) to hang waiting on a blocking I/O that will never 
return. The data
> continuos to be available, you just can't manage the zfs 
infrastructure until the
> device issues are cleared. For example, if you remove a USB drive 
that hosts a
> mounted ZFS, then any attempt to manage that ZFS device will hang 
(zpool export

> -f  hangs until a reboot).


Previously I had been running (at home) a fileserver under OpenSolaris 
using
> ZFS and it saved my data when I had multiple drive failures. At a 
certain client
> we had a 45 TB configuration built on top of 120 750GB drives. We had 
multiple
> redundancy and could survive a complete failure of 2 of the 5 disk 
enclosures (yes,

> we tested this in pre-production).


There are a number of good writeups on how setup a FreeBSD system to 
boot off

> of ZFS, I like this one the best
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE , but I do 
the zpool/zfs
> configuration slightly differently (based on some hard learned 
lessons on Solaris).
> I am writing up my configuration (and why I do it this way), but it 
is not ready yet.


Make sure you look at all the information here: 
http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS ,
> keeping in mind that lots of it was written before FreeBSD 9. I would 
NOT use ZFS,
> especially for booting, prior to release 9 of FreeBSD. Some of the 
reason for this

> is the bugs that were fixed in zpool version 28 (included in release 9).

I would agree with all that. My current system uses UFS filesystems for 
the base install, and ZFS with a raidz zpool for everything else, but 
that's only because I started using ZFS in REL 8.0 when it was just out 
of experimental status, and I didn't want to risk having an unbootable 
system. (That last paragraph suggests I was wise in that decision.) My 
next machine I'm specing out now will be pure ZFS so I get the boot 
environment stuff.


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freeb

About QUOTA support in stock kernel

[Patrick Dung]

Hi,

I would like to know why quota is not enabled in the stock kernel..

I remembered that it is not enabled since freebsd 3.5 or freebsd 4 generation.
Now in freebsd 9.0, it still neeed a kernel rebuild.

I have heard it has performance issue (GIANT lock) about quota.

Regards,
Patrick
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: uname -r output values?

[Fbsd8]

Fleuriot Damien wrote:


On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8  wrote:


When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to 
expect?

So far I have this list.

Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
Where y = number 1 through 9

X.X-BETAy
X.X-RCy
X.X-RELEASE
X.X-RELEASE-py
X.X-PRERELEASE
X.X-CURRENT



mybsd dam  ~
$ uname -r
8.2-STABLE



How did you create this 8.2-STABLE system?

I don't see any .iso file for this.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: uname -r output values?

[Devin Teske]

On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Fbsd8 wrote:

> Fleuriot Damien wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8  wrote:
>>> When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to 
>>> expect?
>>> 
>>> So far I have this list.
>>> 
>>> Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
>>> Where y = number 1 through 9
>>> 
>>> X.X-BETAy
>>> X.X-RCy
>>> X.X-RELEASE
>>> X.X-RELEASE-py
>>> X.X-PRERELEASE
>>> X.X-CURRENT
>> mybsd dam  ~
>> $ uname -r
>> 8.2-STABLE
> 
> How did you create this 8.2-STABLE system?
> 
> I don't see any .iso file for this.
> 

Slurp down the -STABLE code for a kernel, compile said kernel, then boot said 
kernel.

"uname -r" will now produce "-STABLE"

That's the easiest way to get a uname like that, but other ways include doing a 
"buildworld/installworld" off the same slurped code to get a full userland (not 
just kernel) that is -STABLE.
-- 
Devin

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: ZFS info WAS: new backup server file system options

[dweimer]

On 2012-12-21 11:28, Arthur Chance wrote:

On 12/21/12 14:06, Paul Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:49 AM, yudi v wrote:

I am building a new freebsd fileserver to use for backups, will be 
using 2

disk raid mirroring in a HP microserver n40l.
I have gone through some of the documentation and would like to 
know what

file systems to choose.

According to the docs, ufs is suggested for the system partitions 
but
someone on the freebsd irc channel suggested using zfs for the 
rootfs as

well

Are there any disadvantages of using zfs for the whole system 
rather than

going with ufs for the system files and zfs for the user data?


	First a disclaimer, I have been working with Solaris since 1995 and 
managed
lots of data under ZFS, I have only been working with FreeBSD for 
about the past

6 months.

	UFS is clearly very stable and solid, but to get redundancy you 
need to use

a separate "volume manager".


Slight correction here - you don't need a volume manager (as I
understand the term), you'd use the GEOM subsystem, specifically
gmirror in this case. See "man gmirror" for details

	ZFS is a completely different way of thinking about managing 
storage (not

just a filesystem). I prefer ZFS for a number of reasons:

1) End to end data integrity through checksums. With the advent of 1 
TB plus
drives, the uncorrectable error rate (typically  10^-14 or 10^-15) 
means that
over the life of any drive you *are* now likely to run into 
uncorrectable errors.
This means that traditional volume managers (which rely on the drive 
reporting an
bad reads and writes) cannot detect these errors and bad data will 
be returned to

the application.

2) Simplicity of management. Since the volume management and 
filesystem layers

have been combined, you don't have to manage each separately.

3) Flexibility of storage. Once you build a zpool, the filesystems 
that reside
on it share the storage of the entire zpool. This means you don't 
have to decide
how much space to commit to a given filesystem at creation. It also 
means that all
the filesystems residing in that one zpool share the performance of 
all the drives

in that zpool.

4) Specific to booting off of a ZFS, if you move drives around (as I 
tend to do in
at least one of my lab systems) the bootloader can still find the 
root filesystem
under ZFS as it refers to it by zfs device name, not physical drive 
device name.
Yes, you can tell the bootloader where to find root if you move it, 
but zfs does

that automatically.

5) Zero performance penalty snapshots. The only cost to snapshots is 
the space
necessary to hold the data. I have managed systems with over 100,000 
snapshots.


	I am running two production, one lab, and a bunch of VBox VMs all 
with ZFS.
The only issue I have seen is one I have also seen under Solaris 
with ZFS. Certain
kinds of hardware layer faults will cause the zfs management tools 
(the zpool and
zfs commands) to hang waiting on a blocking I/O that will never 
return. The data
continuos to be available, you just can't manage the zfs 
infrastructure until the
device issues are cleared. For example, if you remove a USB drive 
that hosts a
mounted ZFS, then any attempt to manage that ZFS device will hang 
(zpool export

-f  hangs until a reboot).

	Previously I had been running (at home) a fileserver under 
OpenSolaris using
ZFS and it saved my data when I had multiple drive failures. At a 
certain client
we had a 45 TB configuration built on top of 120 750GB drives. We 
had multiple
redundancy and could survive a complete failure of 2 of the 5 disk 
enclosures (yes,

we tested this in pre-production).

	There are a number of good writeups on how setup a FreeBSD system 
to boot off

of ZFS, I like this one the best
http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE , but I do 
the zpool/zfs
configuration slightly differently (based on some hard learned 
lessons on Solaris).
I am writing up my configuration (and why I do it this way), but it 
is not ready yet.


	Make sure you look at all the information here: 
http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS ,
keeping in mind that lots of it was written before FreeBSD 9. I 
would NOT use ZFS,
especially for booting, prior to release 9 of FreeBSD. Some of the 
reason for this
is the bugs that were fixed in zpool version 28 (included in release 
9).


I would agree with all that. My current system uses UFS filesystems
for the base install, and ZFS with a raidz zpool for everything else,
but that's only because I started using ZFS in REL 8.0 when it was
just out of experimental status, and I didn't want to risk having an
unbootable system. (That last paragraph suggests I was wise in that
decision.) My next machine I'm specing out now will be pure ZFS so I
get the boot environment stuff.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd

FreeBSD as an Access Point

[dweimer]

Just wondering if anyone has used FreeBSD (or NanoBSD) on any small 
form factor broads such as PC Engines Alix, or similar hardware.  And 
how well it has worked for them, and what hardware they used.


I have been having a lot of performance issues with my home wireless, 
and am considering replacing the current APs early next year.  I wanted 
something a little more flexible than the standard consumer AP, without 
spending the money for a high end Cisco AP (I do realize that the 
hardware will run me in the range of their low end APs).  My early 
searching shows I should be able to get an Alix board, Wireless Card, 
and Antennas for around $300.


--
Thanks,
   Dean E. Weimer
   http://www.dweimer.net/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD as an Access Point

[Derek Funk]

Not familiar with it my self but soekris 
 
are embedded systems with BSD in mind.




On 12/21/2012 3:12 PM, dweimer wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has used FreeBSD (or NanoBSD) on any small 
form factor broads such as PC Engines Alix, or similar hardware.  And 
how well it has worked for them, and what hardware they used.


I have been having a lot of performance issues with my home wireless, 
and am considering replacing the current APs early next year.  I 
wanted something a little more flexible than the standard consumer AP, 
without spending the money for a high end Cisco AP (I do realize that 
the hardware will run me in the range of their low end APs).  My early 
searching shows I should be able to get an Alix board, Wireless Card, 
and Antennas for around $300.




___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD as an Access Point

[Jason Taylor]

Maybe the pfSense project might have some useful info for you.
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Is_there_a_Compact_Flash,_embedded_hardware,_or_Soekris_or_ALIX_version_of_pfSense%3F


On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Derek Funk  wrote:

> Not familiar with it my self but soekris  ylt=A0oGkkuf1tRQfAUASA5XNyoA;_**ylu=**X3oDMTE1aTNzamNlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3**
> MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1JDRjAz**OF8yMzU-/SIG=117fj2pvu/EXP=**
> 1356154655/**http%3a//soekris.**com/>
> are embedded systems with BSD in mind.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/21/2012 3:12 PM, dweimer wrote:
>
>> Just wondering if anyone has used FreeBSD (or NanoBSD) on any small form
>> factor broads such as PC Engines Alix, or similar hardware.  And how well
>> it has worked for them, and what hardware they used.
>>
>> I have been having a lot of performance issues with my home wireless, and
>> am considering replacing the current APs early next year.  I wanted
>> something a little more flexible than the standard consumer AP, without
>> spending the money for a high end Cisco AP (I do realize that the hardware
>> will run me in the range of their low end APs).  My early searching shows I
>> should be able to get an Alix board, Wireless Card, and Antennas for around
>> $300.
>>
>>
> __**_
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> unsubscr...@freebsd.org "
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD as an Access Point

[Chris Hill]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, dweimer wrote:

I have been having a lot of performance issues with my home wireless, 
and am considering replacing the current APs early next year.  I 
wanted something a little more flexible than the standard consumer AP, 
without spending the money for a high end Cisco AP (I do realize that 
the hardware will run me in the range of their low end APs).  My early 
searching shows I should be able to get an Alix board, Wireless Card, 
and Antennas for around $300.


Not really an answer to the question, but maybe a solution to the 
problem... At my work we deploy a fair amount of wi-fi at clients' 
sites. The access points we like are Pakedge brand. These are solid, 
high-powered industrial-grade equipment, and in your price range. For 
what it's worth.


--
Chris Hill   ch...@monochrome.org
** [ Busy Expunging  ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD as an Access Point

[dweimer]

On 2012-12-21 19:55, Chris Hill wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, dweimer wrote:

I have been having a lot of performance issues with my home 
wireless, and am considering replacing the current APs early next 
year.  I wanted something a little more flexible than the standard 
consumer AP, without spending the money for a high end Cisco AP (I do 
realize that the hardware will run me in the range of their low end 
APs).  My early searching shows I should be able to get an Alix board, 
Wireless Card, and Antennas for around $300.


Not really an answer to the question, but maybe a solution to the
problem... At my work we deploy a fair amount of wi-fi at clients'
sites. The access points we like are Pakedge brand. These are solid,
high-powered industrial-grade equipment, and in your price range. For
what it's worth.


I will look into those, currently running UniFi, worked out great at 
first, but struggling now, can only get 1-3Mbps download, yet 50-60Mbps 
upload.  working with their support now via email ot hopefully resolve 
it, but looking into other options as well.


--
Thanks,
   Dean E. Weimer
   http://www.dweimer.net/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD as an Access Point

[dweimer]

On 2012-12-21 16:19, Jason Taylor wrote:

Maybe the pfSense project might have some useful info for you.

http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Is_there_a_Compact_Flash,_embedded_hardware,_or_Soekris_or_ALIX_version_of_pfSense%3F


On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Derek Funk  wrote:

Not familiar with it my self but soekris 
>
are embedded systems with BSD in mind.




On 12/21/2012 3:12 PM, dweimer wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has used FreeBSD (or NanoBSD) on any small 
form
factor broads such as PC Engines Alix, or similar hardware.  And 
how well

it has worked for them, and what hardware they used.

I have been having a lot of performance issues with my home 
wireless, and

am considering replacing the current APs early next year.  I wanted
something a little more flexible than the standard consumer AP, 
without
spending the money for a high end Cisco AP (I do realize that the 
hardware
will run me in the range of their low end APs).  My early searching 
shows I
should be able to get an Alix board, Wireless Card, and Antennas 
for around

$300.



__**_
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
unsubscr...@freebsd.org "


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Probably should have been more clear, when I was asking about FreeBSD 
on something like Alix, left out the "as an access point" that I was 
thinking.  I have a pfSense system running on an Alix board as my 
Router/Firewall, incredibly happy with it, but already using a Soekris 
VPN1411: Crypto accelerator in the miniPCI slot to help out with my 
IPSec tunnel to work.  Otherwise I would just add a wireless card to 
test it out on that box.  Definitely don't want wireless and router 
together long term though, as I like to be able to take one down without 
the other when doing upgrades.


--
Thanks,
   Dean E. Weimer
   http://www.dweimer.net/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD as an Access Point

[Mark Felder]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:10:42 -0600
dwei...@dweimer.net wrote:

> I will look into those, currently running UniFi, worked out great at 
> first, but struggling now, can only get 1-3Mbps download, yet 50-60Mbps 
> upload.

This seems very, very strange. I've never heard of that problem with UnFi 
before...

Mikrotiks are "neat" devices for wifi too, but they have their own warts... 
beware. Still more powerful than the Linksys you'll pick up at Best Buy, though.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"