Re: [pfSense Support] PFSENSE 2.0
Hi, Op 4-8-2010 17:40, Curtis Maurand schreef: On 8/3/2010 11:15 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: You could probably mitigate some of the writes to disk by having the logging sent to a syslog server elsewhere inside the house that is using traditional write media. That should lengthen the life of the SSD at least until the next generation of SSD comes along that has no write limitations. Really, the whole SSD write issue is not too relevant based on the size of your SSD drive/CF card. It is widely known that flash has limited write cycles, 10.000 is common for current MLC flash. So if you have a 8GB flash card, of which 200MB is allocated by a pfSense image that leaves ~7.5GB free unused cells. The wear levelling in Flash Drives and CF cards will use these unused cells to spread the writes. What this effectively means is that the with 10k write cycles per cell the actual longevity is multiplied by a factor of 7.5. The situation with even larger ssd drives is even better. You install pfSense to a 40GB Intel X25-V, which effectively means that you won't live long enough to see it fail. Do note, that if you ever write the device from start to end that this negates the wear levelling. It then only has the spare cells on the drive or card to remap blocks (~7%). On that note, my much used 1GB lexar 133x CF card I bought when I joined the pfSense project in late 2005 is still fine after running pfSense versions from pre 1.0 to current 2.0BETA4. It's been reflashed a lot, and it's always been running a full install. Because then I can gitsync the installation. According to the pessimists the card should have stopped working atleast 3 years ago. Luckily the world isn't so grim. The CF cards I purchased with a few Alix systems at work though, they stopped working within 3 months. That was with the embedded image that doesn't write to the CF. Which leads me to believe they were exceptionally bad. The Kingston 8GB premium cards in there appear to be perfectly fine. It also seems to have rid them from lockups. Regards, Seth - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] multi-wan, multi-lan security
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Buechler"
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] multi-wan, multi-lan security
Doing VLANs properly all on one switch is probably pretty safe if done
right (biggest risk in those kind of setups is accidental
misconfiguration). I wouldn't do it though, managed switches are too
cheap to not physically segment your internal and external networks.
Hi Chris,
Do you mind if I ask you re-express the last sentence please, ("I wouldn't do it though, managed switches are too cheap to not
physically segment your internal and external networks. ") I am having trouble gleaning what I think is your intended meaning. Too
cheap doesn't seem an adequate justification in itself, if that is what you intend?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com
Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] multi-wan, multi-lan security
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:51 AM, David Burgess wrote: > I've been running the 2.0 betas for a few months and I'm quite happy > with it. Some network and hardware upgrades present me with a few > questions, and maybe I'm overthinking it, but I thought I would ask > the opinion of the wise ones. > > I'm running mlppp and it works beautifully. For the last 2-3 months > it's been just 2 DSL connections, so they each got a dedicated NIC on > the net5501. Now I'm upsizing significantly to 8 DSL lines, and since > there's no reasonable way of getting enough physical ports into the > 5501, I'm obviously forced to use vlans to get all the DSL and LAN > connections up. I have a single smart swith with vlan capability, but > a second smart switch is not in the budget at the moment. A managed switch can be bought for very little. Bunch of HP 2512/2524s on ebay that go for $50 USD or less shipped, lot of similar others. In the scheme of things, compared to paying for 8 DSL lines, that's nothing. Doing VLANs properly all on one switch is probably pretty safe if done right (biggest risk in those kind of setups is accidental misconfiguration). I wouldn't do it though, managed switches are too cheap to not physically segment your internal and external networks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] multi-wan, multi-lan security
I've been running the 2.0 betas for a few months and I'm quite happy with it. Some network and hardware upgrades present me with a few questions, and maybe I'm overthinking it, but I thought I would ask the opinion of the wise ones. I'm running mlppp and it works beautifully. For the last 2-3 months it's been just 2 DSL connections, so they each got a dedicated NIC on the net5501. Now I'm upsizing significantly to 8 DSL lines, and since there's no reasonable way of getting enough physical ports into the 5501, I'm obviously forced to use vlans to get all the DSL and LAN connections up. I have a single smart swith with vlan capability, but a second smart switch is not in the budget at the moment. Therefore, my DSL and LAN ports will be on the same switch, different vlans. This brings me to my first question. 1. Given that -nobody but me has physical access to pfsense or its connected switch, -nobody outside my immediate family will have access to the management vlan of the switch, -nobody but me will have access to the web UI or console of pfsense, -WAN packets will be split across 8 DSL connections, what are my risks? I know it has been said on this list that WAN and LAN should be physically separated. At what point does 'should' become 'must'? Next, I have decided to replace the net5501 with a dual-Atom board (the Supermicro X7SPA of legend), which has 2 Intel GBE NICs*. Next question. 2. Given that -my WAN and LAN interfaces will coexist on a single switch, separated only by vlans, -my total throughput will be well below 1 gbps, -I have switch ports to spare, is there any advantage or disadvantage to using either one or both physical NICs on pfsense? Do I gain any security by running the mlppp member vlans on one physical NIC and the LAN/OPT vlans on the second physical NIC? Would I save any power by parenting all the vlans on a single physical NIC and leaving the other one (and another switch port) unplugged? Am I splitting hairs on this one? Thanks for your thoughts. I'm very grateful for the quality of the pfsense product, and for the unequalled body of expertise on this list. I considered posting this on a networking-specific forum, but I'm not convinced there is one quarter the talent hanging out there. db *I'm a little disappointed to retire the 5501 from firewall duty so soon. I chose it over other embedded hardware specifically for it's advantage in RAM and number of NICs, but my needs grew rapidly and before I ever really got to load it up I found myself needing more ports and faster storage. Ah well, I think it may still make a good monitoring tool and perhaps pbx and/or seedbox. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] PFSENSE 2.0
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Karl Fife wrote: > If you want to run the full version on embedded, there are lots of SSD's > these days with wear-leveling subsystems to address the "write endurance" > issue of nand flash memory. Some SSD's (such as Intel's newest SSD family) > even take it a step further by adding extra blocks to swap out when a block > becomes exhausted. Intel's version apparently also does something like > S.M.A.R.T., but instead of monitoring the length and growth rate of the > master defect table, the SSD equivalent of SMART instead monitors the pool > of spares and can inform the OS when a disk failure is in approaching. Many > of us have hard-won experience indicating that SMART is pretty crappy > (because growth characteristics of the master defect table are in fact only > loosely correlated with actual disk failure), but I suspect that the SSD > equivalent will provide a reliable prediction. > > I tend to think we're at the dawn of a new era in storage. With SSD's & > low-power fanless ITX systems, it seems like the line between 'full' and > 'embedded' is becoming a bit fuzzy. > SSD is considerably different than CF, SSDs should be treated like a hard drive. The SMART capabilities added to 2.0 work nicely on SSD from what I've seen thus far. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Chris Buechler wrote: >> Yes ... it's a problem that the developers don't seem to care too much about >> :( >> http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/495 > > There's a big difference between not caring and not being able to fix > something - that was the latter, not the former. Though I didn't see > the patch linked there, will see if that's reasonable to apply. Generally I am extremely impressed with everything pfSense, but it seemed like the problem was being ignored. Sorry if I was being unfairly harsh. On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tim Nelson wrote: >> > without patching kernel, just by adding to /boot/loader.conf line: >> > kern.cam.boot_delay=1 >> > It makes CAM subsystem to wait at least specified time (in ms) for >> > delayed bus registration. > > This works!!! I set the value to 5000 and booting proceeds exactly as > expected. > > I don't see how this could/would have an undesired effects on other > hardware... > is it possible to have this added to the default pfSense loader.conf in time > for > the next beta or for sure the 2.0 release? Other than slowing boot down by 5 seconds :-) Regards, -Jeppe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] problem with 2.0BETA[34] and usb
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: > > and with regular 8.1R it worked fine. > It's highly unlikely to be any different (where all else is equal), we don't change anything related to USB or that driver. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
- "Tim Nelson" wrote: > - "Jeppe Øland" wrote: > > Googling found a recent workaround: > > > http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?s=d7af7671c4a56cb50af4c13e2fb7877f&p=91961&postcount=8 > > > > Since few month ago it is possible to workaround the issue on > > 8-STABLE > > without patching kernel, just by adding to /boot/loader.conf line: > > kern.cam.boot_delay=1 > > It makes CAM subsystem to wait at least specified time (in ms) for > > delayed bus registration. > > > > Sadly it's not a proper fix since it should really wait for all the > > subsystems to finish/signal that they are done ... but I guess the > > proper fix is a lot harder to do than adding a simple delay. > > > > I guess I'll be checking this out over the weekend! > > If it works, maybe we can request it to be added to the default > > configuration. > > > > VERY interesting! I'll try this shortly and report back. > This works!!! I set the value to 5000 and booting proceeds exactly as expected. I don't see how this could/would have an undesired effects on other hardware... is it possible to have this added to the default pfSense loader.conf in time for the next beta or for sure the 2.0 release? --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
- "Jeppe Øland" wrote: > Googling found a recent workaround: > http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?s=d7af7671c4a56cb50af4c13e2fb7877f&p=91961&postcount=8 > > Since few month ago it is possible to workaround the issue on > 8-STABLE > without patching kernel, just by adding to /boot/loader.conf line: > kern.cam.boot_delay=1 > It makes CAM subsystem to wait at least specified time (in ms) for > delayed bus registration. > > Sadly it's not a proper fix since it should really wait for all the > subsystems to finish/signal that they are done ... but I guess the > proper fix is a lot harder to do than adding a simple delay. > > I guess I'll be checking this out over the weekend! > If it works, maybe we can request it to be added to the default > configuration. > VERY interesting! I'll try this shortly and report back. --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
- "David Burgess" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Tim Nelson > wrote: > > > Yes, I'm testing with the latest 2.0 BETA3. > > The latest is BETA4. > Silly typos. Who thought it would be a good idea to put the '3' next to the '4' on the keyboard... :-) --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Tim Nelson wrote: > Yes, I'm testing with the latest 2.0 BETA3. The latest is BETA4. db - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
Googling found a recent workaround: http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?s=d7af7671c4a56cb50af4c13e2fb7877f&p=91961&postcount=8 Since few month ago it is possible to workaround the issue on 8-STABLE without patching kernel, just by adding to /boot/loader.conf line: kern.cam.boot_delay=1 It makes CAM subsystem to wait at least specified time (in ms) for delayed bus registration. Sadly it's not a proper fix since it should really wait for all the subsystems to finish/signal that they are done ... but I guess the proper fix is a lot harder to do than adding a simple delay. I guess I'll be checking this out over the weekend! If it works, maybe we can request it to be added to the default configuration. Regards, -Jeppe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jeppe Øland wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tim Nelson wrote: >> While booting a system from a USB<-->SATA attached hard drive, the boot >> process fails when >> trying to mount root since the drive has not been fully initialized. The >> system is placed at a prompt >> for updating the boot parameters and within 1 second, messages appear the >> drive was deteced (da0). >> Entering this (the original boot parameters) at the prompt allows the board >> to boot: >> >> ufs:/dev/da0s1a >> >> Is there a way to force the kernel to wait for a period of time after >> initializing before attempting to >> mount the rootfs? This would allow the devices time to fully init and >> 'settle' prior to the kernel attempting >> a mount and failing. > > Yes ... it's a problem that the developers don't seem to care too much about > :( > http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/495 > There's a big difference between not caring and not being able to fix something - that was the latter, not the former. Though I didn't see the patch linked there, will see if that's reasonable to apply. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tim Nelson wrote: >> Did you try it with the latest beta ... with some luck it was fixed >> upstream. > > Yes, I'm testing with the latest 2.0 BETA3. There's a BETA4 as well. Regards, -Jeppe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
- "Jeppe Øland" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tim Nelson > wrote: > > While booting a system from a USB<-->SATA attached hard drive, the > boot process fails when > > trying to mount root since the drive has not been fully initialized. > The system is placed at a prompt > > for updating the boot parameters and within 1 second, messages > appear the drive was deteced (da0). > > Entering this (the original boot parameters) at the prompt allows > the board to boot: > > > > ufs:/dev/da0s1a > > > > Is there a way to force the kernel to wait for a period of time > after initializing before attempting to > > mount the rootfs? This would allow the devices time to fully init > and 'settle' prior to the kernel attempting > > a mount and failing. > > Yes ... it's a problem that the developers don't seem to care too much > about :( > http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/495 > > Did you try it with the latest beta ... with some luck it was fixed > upstream. > :-( Yes, I'm testing with the latest 2.0 BETA3. --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tim Nelson wrote: > While booting a system from a USB<-->SATA attached hard drive, the boot > process fails when > trying to mount root since the drive has not been fully initialized. The > system is placed at a prompt > for updating the boot parameters and within 1 second, messages appear the > drive was deteced (da0). > Entering this (the original boot parameters) at the prompt allows the board > to boot: > > ufs:/dev/da0s1a > > Is there a way to force the kernel to wait for a period of time after > initializing before attempting to > mount the rootfs? This would allow the devices time to fully init and > 'settle' prior to the kernel attempting > a mount and failing. Yes ... it's a problem that the developers don't seem to care too much about :( http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/495 Did you try it with the latest beta ... with some luck it was fixed upstream. Regards, -Jeppe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB Keyboard - Boot Hangs
- "Paul Mansfield" wrote: > On 04/08/10 18:31, Tim Nelson wrote: > > There is no option for legacy mode in the BIOS. :-( > > presumably there's no PS2 keyboard port? > > or if there is, your keyboard isn't the type which can turn into a > ps2 > keyboard using the oversized purple usb-to-ps2 plug thing that some > come > with? > > I have a ps2 KVM and a device which is usb only and I use one of > these: > http://tinyurl.com/35m36nc > I've actually tried using an adapter that appears to be identical to the one you reference with the same result. Unfortunately, this board does not have any PS2 ports, only USB. --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB Keyboard - Boot Hangs
On 04/08/10 18:31, Tim Nelson wrote: > There is no option for legacy mode in the BIOS. :-( presumably there's no PS2 keyboard port? or if there is, your keyboard isn't the type which can turn into a ps2 keyboard using the oversized purple usb-to-ps2 plug thing that some come with? I have a ps2 KVM and a device which is usb only and I use one of these: http://tinyurl.com/35m36nc - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB Keyboard - Boot Hangs
- "Jim Pingle" wrote: > On 8/4/2010 1:24 PM, Tim Nelson wrote: > > Greetings (again) fellow pfSense'rs- > > > > I'm also having issues with booting a system with a USB keyboard. > The keyboard works perfectly fine, but when pfSense attempts to > initialize all devices, there are problems and the system hangs: > > > > Starting device manager (devd)...kbdcontrol: cannot open /dev/ukbd0: > Device busy > > > > I've tried multiple keyboards, with and without using a KVM, and the > result is the same. > > > > I've also tried booting without a keyboard altogether but then the > error message is 'No such file or directory' instead of 'Device > busy'. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Have you tried toggling the Legacy USB option in the BIOS if there is > a > choice for it? > There is no option for legacy mode in the BIOS. :-( --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] USB Keyboard - Boot Hangs
On 8/4/2010 1:24 PM, Tim Nelson wrote: > Greetings (again) fellow pfSense'rs- > > I'm also having issues with booting a system with a USB keyboard. The > keyboard works perfectly fine, but when pfSense attempts to initialize all > devices, there are problems and the system hangs: > > Starting device manager (devd)...kbdcontrol: cannot open /dev/ukbd0: Device > busy > > I've tried multiple keyboards, with and without using a KVM, and the result > is the same. > > I've also tried booting without a keyboard altogether but then the error > message is 'No such file or directory' instead of 'Device busy'. > > Any thoughts? Have you tried toggling the Legacy USB option in the BIOS if there is a choice for it? Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] USB/SATA HDD - Force Delay?
Greetings fellow pfSense'rs- While booting a system from a USB<-->SATA attached hard drive, the boot process fails when trying to mount root since the drive has not been fully initialized. The system is placed at a prompt for updating the boot parameters and within 1 second, messages appear the drive was deteced (da0). Entering this (the original boot parameters) at the prompt allows the board to boot: ufs:/dev/da0s1a Is there a way to force the kernel to wait for a period of time after initializing before attempting to mount the rootfs? This would allow the devices time to fully init and 'settle' prior to the kernel attempting a mount and failing. Thoughts? --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] USB Keyboard - Boot Hangs
Greetings (again) fellow pfSense'rs- I'm also having issues with booting a system with a USB keyboard. The keyboard works perfectly fine, but when pfSense attempts to initialize all devices, there are problems and the system hangs: Starting device manager (devd)...kbdcontrol: cannot open /dev/ukbd0: Device busy I've tried multiple keyboards, with and without using a KVM, and the result is the same. I've also tried booting without a keyboard altogether but then the error message is 'No such file or directory' instead of 'Device busy'. Any thoughts? --Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] PFSENSE 2.0
On 8/3/2010 11:15 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:22:41AM -0500, Karl Fife wrote: We're going to build up just such a system in just a few months after we close a couple of open projects. Has anyone done this already,& have experience to share? I'm running 3 pfSense full installation on flash/SSDs. One is an ALIX system with SLC CF flash, one is a SuperMicro Atom rackmount with 4 (or 8?) SLC Transcend SSD, and one uses Intel 80 GByte 2nd gen SSD. No issues so far. P.S. I'm watching http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Is_there_IPv6_support_available as of today I have native IPv6 support now. Yay! You could probably mitigate some of the writes to disk by having the logging sent to a syslog server elsewhere inside the house that is using traditional write media. That should lengthen the life of the SSD at least until the next generation of SSD comes along that has no write limitations. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] pfSense + Squid ftp problem
Hi, We have setup the squid proxy for LAN users where NO direct Internet access is allowed. It works fine for the LAN users to access Internet / FTP through IE / Firefox with proxy enabled. The problem is that the LAN user cannot access any FTP server through FTP client such as Filezilla, CuteFTP, CoreFTP, with proxy enabled. ( Http / Site / User method /) The error from the client is that Access Denied. Squid Log shows: 1280931420.633 0 192.168.45.164 TCP_DENIED/403 1376 CONNECT ftp-internal.mydomain.int:21 - NONE/- text/html As the FTP access is possible through browser and we have no access control rules, what's the problem? The ftp client is configured to use generic proxy HTTP1.1 CONNECT method and Passive Mode Thanks and Regards, -- dpc
Re: [pfSense Support] problem with 2.0BETA[34] and usb
On Wed, August 4, 2010 08:43, Seth Mos wrote: > Hi, > > Op 3-8-2010 20:16, Nenhum_de_Nos schreef: >> hail, >> > > all tests now are on BETA4. anyone has any clue ? >> >> this is a via mini itx crusoe based mobo. >> > > Have you considered a bios update? > > Regards, > > Seth unfortunately this is not an option :( looked for, not found :/ and with regular 8.1R it worked fine. looks to be more stable now, almost 1 day up. will keep on testing. thanks, matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] non-circular syslog / config option "disableyslogclog" in pfsense 2.0 Beta 4
Hi list, I recently noticed references to an option called "disablesyslogclog". However, I can't find any documentation for it. Is this work in progress or a usable feature? Since my pfsense installation is running from hard disk, I don't have to worry about disk space or wearing a flash memory. However, having complete log files, even if a lot is going on, is very important to me. That is why I'd like to switch to a regular logging mechanism where I can grab the log files from /var/log and save them to a backup disk, instead of having each log file loop over as soon as it reaches its maximum size. Discovering the above-mentioned option, I was hoping that this is now possible. Does anybody have any info on this? I know that I could log to an external syslog server, however, in my usage scenario, that is out of the question - I don't have the physical space for a second server on that LAN, I would prefer not to run pfsense as a virtual machine guest, and I don't believe the WAN connection is reliable enough for realtime syslogging, that's why I'd prefer to fetch the logs once a day. Kind regards, Stefan
Re: [pfSense Support] problem with 2.0BETA[34] and usb
Hi, Op 3-8-2010 20:16, Nenhum_de_Nos schreef: hail, all tests now are on BETA4. anyone has any clue ? this is a via mini itx crusoe based mobo. Have you considered a bios update? Regards, Seth - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] haproxy
Hi, I'm running a master/slave setup of 1.2.3 and about to install haproxy, I have 2 options under packages: BETA-0.29 and BETA-0.30 My question, why is the newer one marked as "stable"? Thanks, Josh. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
