Just upgraded to 0.90 and traffic shaping seems to be broken.
Even after rerunning the wizard I get:
# pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
bandwidth for qWANRoot higher than interface
/tmp/rules.debug:17: errors in queue definition
parent qWANRoot not found for qWANdef
/tmp/rules.debug:18: errors in queue
At 03:32 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote:
Just upgraded to 0.90 and traffic shaping seems to be broken.
Even after rerunning the wizard I get:
# pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
bandwidth for qWANRoot higher than interface
/tmp/rules.debug:17: errors in queue definition
parent qWANRoot not found for qWANdef
At 03:41 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I am up to date on all MFC's. Did I miss one?
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/chngview?cn=7245
fixed the problem where the shaper vaporizes the BW settings in the GUI.
-
Although...
# pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
bandwidth for qWANRoot higher than interface
Tells me that ummm, the bandwidth Peter told the system is more than
the interfaces bandwidth. Not much I can do to control that.
However, I did just make some changes to the shaper for .90 (I assume
the MFCs
At 03:46 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote:
Which appears to have been MFC'd at:
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/chngview?cn=7254
So it sounds like the problem is not fixed entirely?
no, that's different. his errors referred to the BW being higher
than the iface BW, which implies it does know it?
On 10/31/05, Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, that's different. his errors referred to the BW being higher
than the iface BW, which implies it does know it?
Which means that he needs to set the bandwidth correctly in WAN and
LAN I would guess.
Scott
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well... You obviously could have checked that and printed the error
during wizard run.
Patches accepted!
Scott
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:20 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
A
Why not to set it to 1000Mbit ? Seriously If you're looking for
something fail safe it could be fails safe.
this is not ever going to happen unless there is something
misdefined. very few people need to shape more than
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:04 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
Well... You obviously could have checked that and printed the error
during wizard run.
dude, these guys are working their butts off, a little more civility
would be
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:20 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
A
Why not to set it to 1000Mbit ? Seriously If you're looking for
something fail safe it could be fails safe.
Just like your very well thought out default deny? I'll put that
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 17:14 -0600, Bill Marquette wrote:
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact it is not production ready as you put it makes me cautious -
this is why I go in bridging mode as this way I can bypass firewall
physically by switching couple of cables
11 matches
Mail list logo
