Re: [pfSense] Installation issues of latest release (2.3.2) resolved?

[Jim Thompson]

pfSense is normally tested on the devices that Netgate has released as
products over the past two years.

pfSense 2.3.2 was tested on the following devices and hypervisors:

SG-2220 (eMMC and M.2), SG-2440 (eMMC and mSATA), SG-4860 (eMMC and mSATA),
SG-8860 (eMMC and mSATA), 7541 (CF and SSD), 7551 (CF and SSD), APU (not
APU2) (nano on SD, full install on SD, and mSATA), ALIX, C2758, XG-1540,
XG2758, AWS, Azure, OVA (VMware), as well as a KVM and bhyve images for
internal use.

pfSense CE is tested against an otherwise unremarkable, ordinary 64-bit PC
for the ISO, memstick and serial memstick images for both amd64 and i386
architectures, including a "CE" install for the ADI (SG-) platforms
above.  NanoBSD images are tested for both 2G and 4G CF cards for both
amd64 and i386 for both VGA and non-VGA.  An amd64 OVA for pfSense CE is
produced and tested as well.

For all the above, clean install as well as upgrade (from 2.3.1 and 2.2.6 )
were tested.   Several parameters and items (I will not document them all)
are checked after install or upgrade to ensure they are the expected value.

The full matrix takes several people several days to complete.

As a reminder, pfSense 2.4 will not support i386, and will not support the
'nano' image.
We are including ARM support (for the uFW) in pfSense 2.4.

Jim


On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Ryan Coleman  wrote:

> I presume you mean AMD… But that’s what the 64-bit code base is labeled
> as, regardless of Intel, AMD or other.
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 2016, at 9:50 PM, Alfredo Tapia Sabogal <
> alfred.ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So far i know pfsense have some issues related to the architecture of ADM
> >
> > CHEERS
> >
> > Alfredo Tapia Sabogal
>
> ___
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
>
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] Installation issues of latest release (2.3.2) resolved?

[Ryan Coleman]

I presume you mean AMD… But that’s what the 64-bit code base is labeled as, 
regardless of Intel, AMD or other.


> On Jul 29, 2016, at 9:50 PM, Alfredo Tapia Sabogal  
> wrote:
> 
> So far i know pfsense have some issues related to the architecture of ADM
> 
> CHEERS
> 
> Alfredo Tapia Sabogal

___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] Installation issues of latest release (2.3.2) resolved?

[Alfredo Tapia Sabogal]

So far i know pfsense have some issues related to the architecture of ADM

CHEERS

Alfredo Tapia Sabogal
El jul. 29, 2016 9:38 PM, "Ryan Coleman"  escribió:

> Have we established an official bug for the newest release? I can babysit
> one installation on Sunday without an issue but it’s the one I cannot
> afford to lose (retail shop) that needs updating sooner rather than later
> (as I won’t have the time for a month)….
>
> So does this effect APUs running the AMD64 architecture?
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
> ___
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

[pfSense] Installation issues of latest release (2.3.2) resolved?

[Ryan Coleman]

Have we established an official bug for the newest release? I can babysit one 
installation on Sunday without an issue but it’s the one I cannot afford to 
lose (retail shop) that needs updating sooner rather than later (as I won’t 
have the time for a month)….

So does this effect APUs running the AMD64 architecture?

Please advise.

Thanks,
Ryan
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

[Karl Fife]

On 7/26/2016 8:40 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Volker Kuhlmann  wrote:

On Tue 26 Jul 2016 09:41:37 NZST +1200, Karl Fife wrote:


Interesting how it failed: The fried port 'simply' broke
connectivity for the interface's LAN segment.  Everything else
continued to work.  I kinda didn't believe the report that Internet
was out for the one LAN, since the other was not.

I don't think this is that unusual or surprising. You get the same
effect if you plug in a real POTS line into an Ethernet port...


  After some
testing, I found the system would not come up after reboot because
it had gone into port reassignment mode since the config made
reference to a non-existent interface.

I find this really really annoying of pfsense! Especially for headless
systems. Hey, why run with only one interface and some functionality
missing when one can run with functionality of zero point zero instead?


Because any fall back there is potentially unsafe. Say you have
igb0-igb5, and igb2 dies. Now your igb3 is igb2, igb4 is igb3, etc.
Any assumptions you make about what's correct are potentially
dangerous, and likely to be wrong. We've had discussions around that
in greater depth multiple times over the years. Any way you do it has
edge case bugs, is dangerous and/or wouldn't be right anyway.



Amen to that.   Please don't change port behavior "automagically". This 
appears to be a phenomenon now.  I'm often seeing examples of ridiculous 
"fail safe" hardware features (e.g. binding IPMI to eth0 on IPMI link 
failure, or bridging interfaces on OS failure). Chok-full-o externalized 
security risks.   Certain "visionaries" needs to be taken out and beaten.


Thanks to Moshe, Jim and others for the links and musings!!   I now 
suspect that the isolation amplifier likely induced current on the 
Ethernet controller side of the circuit, meaning that the board may need 
a dual-chipectomy.


Either way, my thinking is that the low cost of fiber fiber and 
transceivers may be cheap insurance in the fugure if for example there's 
potential for different safety-ground reference points in the AC 
wiring.  In my case, I was on different panels within the same 
structure.  Technically they have the same safety-ground reference, but 
in the event of an AC power anomaly/event, anything can happen (e.g. as 
a the safety ground path begins to carry current).


I do think that if switching gear on BOTH ends of my Ethernet run *had 
been* bonded to a common "Earth-ground" reference (vs the electrical 
safety ground, as recommended by manufacturers), I suspect it may have 
significantly reduced the probability of damage as the anomaly would 
have been partly sunk through the earth-ground lug on the back of the 
equipemnt, reducing the potential for errant current being induced 
through the isolation transformer.  As it was only one side was bonded 
to a dedicated earth-ground, possibly increasing the chance of trouble 
versus the chances if neither side had been earth-grounded at all.



___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] Unable to check for updates?

[Dan Langille]

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Kemecsei Gábor  wrote:
> 
> "Unable to check for updates"
> 
> It's ok?
> 
> I use:
> "2.3.1-RELEASE-p5 (i386)
> built on Thu Jun 16 12:53:31 CDT 2016
> FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE-p3 "
> 
> The Package Manager reply:
> "Unable to retrieve package information."
> 
> I have a bug or pfSense?


Is this a DNS issue?  Sounds like a problem I had until enabled DNS Forwarder 
on localhost:

see https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=115197.msg641301#msg641301 


-- 
Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon
d...@langille.org




___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

[pfSense] Unable to check for updates?

[Kemecsei Gábor]

"Unable to check for updates"

It's ok?

I use:
"2.3.1-RELEASE-p5 (i386)
built on Thu Jun 16 12:53:31 CDT 2016
FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE-p3 "

The Package Manager reply:
"Unable to retrieve package information."

I have a bug or pfSense?

kemecs
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold