* Beavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-22 18:29]:
hi folks,
I saw this performance issue with pf on a AMD64firewall: below is the link
http://www.nabble.com/firewall-is-very-slow%2C-something%27s-wrong-t4572653i20.html
it states that pf on 4.2 performs much better than in 4.1. having
Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
doing teh boring, pretty riskless 10 minutes taking 4.2 upgrade everybody
could easily do,
for some combinations of crappy old hardware, too small memory size
and nonsensically large filesystems it might stretch into 20-odd
minutes, but otherwise my
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:20:41AM -0600, Beavis wrote:
| hi folks,
|
|I saw this performance issue with pf on a AMD64firewall: below is the
link
|
|
http://www.nabble.com/firewall-is-very-slow%2C-something%27s-wrong-t4572653i2
0.html
|
| it states that pf on 4.2 performs much better than in
On 10/22/07, Beavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi folks,
I saw this performance issue with pf on a AMD64firewall: below is the link
http://www.nabble.com/firewall-is-very-slow%2C-something%27s-wrong-t4572653i20.html
it states that pf on 4.2 performs much better than in 4.1. having said
thanks for the reply guys, I currently run CARP and pfsync on both
boxes (upgrade can be done with less downtime) though i haven't tried
to stress test my setup, i guess this upgrade is do-able. instead of
coding (im not a coder).
regards,
-beavis
On 10/22/07, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5 matches
Mail list logo