Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Paul M wrote: Jan Hoevers wrote: While not unwilling to donate to projects, this bounty thing is not for me because of a strict open source policy. you could always buy a support contract, which is entirely different from buying proprietary software. sorry, but I think your understanding of OSS is flawed. for the best explanation... http://www.gnu.org/ What is Free Software? “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer” Ahh yes, the beer analogy. Drink up gents:-) As in the book Animal Farm, one quickly learns that some pigs are more equal than others. A bounty system isn't a bad way for the community to respond with their own my need is more equal feature requests. Rather fair I'd say, and good feedback for the dev team (note: it's been very good idea in other projects with or without a corporate benefactor) Afterall, Chris, Bill, Scott and others have bills to pay, and beer to buy for themselves after a hard day's work:-) Certainly a better cause than blowing $$ at Bestbuy:-) Regards, andy p.s. nice work on 1.2. really solid, and handles [HD] VoD through verizon FIOS without a hitch.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Bill Marquette wrote on 23-3-2008 18:52: Seeing as how the feature is targeted for 1.3 and we don't have public 1.3 test images (hello, we JUST released 1.2) yet, it will be difficult for those that have donated to the feature to test that it's actually been done right. The easiest way for Ermal to get the feedback from those that are financially interested in the feature is to provide a special release for those users. I've done the same for features I've developed - _I_ support those special images, I'm only willing to provide that supported them being created. I imagine Ermal feels the same way. When we start rolling public 1.3 images (if you can't wait, feel free to do a developers install and roll your own, just don't expect any support on it), the larger group of developers (and hopefully users) will be able to provide support. Obviously it's Ermal who decides how to release his features. Although I would like support new features, it's actually the lack of a wide user base that keeps me away from special versions. As I see it, that is the down side of this bounty system. Rolling my own version wouldn't solve that. As with all products, I fully recommend basing evaluations against current released feature sets, not vapor-ware features (in the Hm yes, you're right about that. Jan
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Marquette wrote on 23-3-2008 18:54: PS. It's probably worth noting that I'm also the author of the existing annoying wizard. Sorry about that qualification Bill. The fact that it cannot be bypassed annoyed me, not the wizard itself. Not a problem - I'm not posting from a pfsense.org address so, I figured it was worth noting that I have some amount of personal interest in it :) --Bill
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Jan Hoevers wrote: While not unwilling to donate to projects, this bounty thing is not for me because of a strict open source policy. Again, is there any estimate for 1.3? This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks to those who contributed. You could figure out what it is in CVS and sync a 1.2 install with that code. The latest info on the 1.3 release is on http://blog.pfsense.org as always. Scroll down a couple posts.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Chris Buechler wrote on 23-3-2008 8:51: Jan Hoevers wrote: While not unwilling to donate to projects, this bounty thing is not for me because of a strict open source policy. Again, is there any estimate for 1.3? This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks to those who contributed. You could figure out what it is in CVS and sync a 1.2 install with that code. I see. Guess that makes it open source strictly speaking, but it is not the 100% openness I would expect from an open source project. While I understand that people have to earn a living, this bounty policy makes things difficult for people who want to evaluate before deciding. I think I should use the time left to the first 1.3 beta to try a FreeBSD/PF/ALT setup and see what I run into. Jan Hoevers
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Buechler wrote on 23-3-2008 8:51: Jan Hoevers wrote: While not unwilling to donate to projects, this bounty thing is not for me because of a strict open source policy. Again, is there any estimate for 1.3? This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks to those who contributed. You could figure out what it is in CVS and sync a 1.2 install with that code. I see. Guess that makes it open source strictly speaking, but it is not the 100% openness I would expect from an open source project. While I understand that people have to earn a living, this bounty policy makes things difficult for people who want to evaluate before deciding. Now if you want to bitch about it go on nobody can stop you. If you had the knowledge that open source strictly speaking and 100% openness would not be there but you would have it in your test environment. So either go and learn how to do stuff or just wait as anybody else when it is shipped/ready for you. Ermal I think I should use the time left to the first 1.3 beta to try a FreeBSD/PF/ALT setup and see what I run into. Jan Hoevers
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Oh,oh,oh... I really didn't wanted to fire up such a discussion. My 2 ct. regarding pfSense, open source and community work: Open source means for me that for that specific application I can get anytime the source code to be able to modify it or extend it. As pfSense base its license on the BSD model, which allows almost everything, I don't see any complain about it. In a community development work, as it is done here, priorities are most of the time dictated by either community pressure or by the technical challenge every single developer sees. The bounty system is a good idea if you want to change priorities or you need something completely new. As I did not payed anything for the development, I shut my mouth and I'm thankful for every effort done by others. The bug I report are not to blame anybody but rather to help correct errors and/or improve quality. Personally, I think that pfSense is moving quite fast and the releases are pretty stable. So, folk in the list, go on with the great job ! Daniele Ermal Luçi wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Buechler wrote on 23-3-2008 8:51: Jan Hoevers wrote: While not unwilling to donate to projects, this bounty thing is not for me because of a strict open source policy. Again, is there any estimate for 1.3? This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks to those who contributed. You could figure out what it is in CVS and sync a 1.2 install with that code. I see. Guess that makes it open source strictly speaking, but it is not the 100% openness I would expect from an open source project. While I understand that people have to earn a living, this bounty policy makes things difficult for people who want to evaluate before deciding. Now if you want to bitch about it go on nobody can stop you. If you had the knowledge that open source strictly speaking and 100% openness would not be there but you would have it in your test environment. So either go and learn how to do stuff or just wait as anybody else when it is shipped/ready for you. Ermal I think I should use the time left to the first 1.3 beta to try a FreeBSD/PF/ALT setup and see what I run into. Jan Hoevers -- regards - Daniele Guazzoni Senior Network Engineer, CCNP, CCNA Linux and AMD-x86_64 or do you still with Windows and Intel ? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailGate, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Ermal Luçi wrote on 23-3-2008 11:08: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Buechler wrote on 23-3-2008 8:51: Jan Hoevers wrote: While not unwilling to donate to projects, this bounty thing is not for me because of a strict open source policy. Again, is there any estimate for 1.3? This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks to those who contributed. You could figure out what it is in CVS and sync a 1.2 install with that code. I see. Guess that makes it open source strictly speaking, but it is not the 100% openness I would expect from an open source project. While I understand that people have to earn a living, this bounty policy makes things difficult for people who want to evaluate before deciding. Now if you want to bitch about it go on nobody can stop you. If you had the knowledge that open source strictly speaking and 100% openness would not be there but you would have it in your test environment. So either go and learn how to do stuff or just wait as anybody else when it is shipped/ready for you. Ermal I don't feel like bitching about it, and I think I wasn't, but I was not aware of this bounty system and just shared my thoughts about it. Waiting is mostly not the best option when things need to get done. Never mind, I wrote rule sets on text based systems before and I don't feel unhappy to do it again. best regards, Jan Hoevers
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks to those who contributed. You could figure out what it is in CVS and sync a 1.2 install with that code. I see. Guess that makes it open source strictly speaking, but it is not the 100% openness I would expect from an open source project. While I understand that people have to earn a living, this bounty policy makes things difficult for people who want to evaluate before deciding. Seeing as how the feature is targeted for 1.3 and we don't have public 1.3 test images (hello, we JUST released 1.2) yet, it will be difficult for those that have donated to the feature to test that it's actually been done right. The easiest way for Ermal to get the feedback from those that are financially interested in the feature is to provide a special release for those users. I've done the same for features I've developed - _I_ support those special images, I'm only willing to provide that supported them being created. I imagine Ermal feels the same way. When we start rolling public 1.3 images (if you can't wait, feel free to do a developers install and roll your own, just don't expect any support on it), the larger group of developers (and hopefully users) will be able to provide support. As with all products, I fully recommend basing evaluations against current released feature sets, not vapor-ware features (in the interest of releasing a better product in a timely manner, vendors inevitably pull incomplete features that had been promised - Apple, wake up, I want my bloody iSCSI Initiator in Leopard thank you!). --Bill
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
PS. It's probably worth noting that I'm also the author of the existing annoying wizard.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Buechler wrote on 21-3-2008 23:22: For 1.3, Ermal has done a nice job completely rewriting the traffic shaper to accommodate these kinds of situations and more. The traffic shaper in 1.2 only works properly with two interface setups (LAN and WAN). Right now I'm running traffic shaping on an extra pfSense box, just to avoid this multi interface issue. Planning to move away to a bare FreeBSD/PF/ALTQ setup because of this, would prefer to stay with pfSense however. Do you have any clue when the new features become available? http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2718.0.html Take a look there is a bounty in there which explains the details and how you can get it before 1.3.(You may want to skip the first pages though, it is rather large thread). One suggestion: give us an option to bypass this annoying traffic shaping wizard. I know it's possible to delete the generated setup once the wizard has completed, but that's not really nice for those who cannot use the standard setup. It is not anymore fired by default since now there are multiple wizards. Another suggestion: it would make a real difference if it were possible to make rules without specifying *both* the incoming and outgoing interface. ALTQ has that option, so perhaps you are planning that already. Yes, on the new version you specify queues on specific rules, as you do on FreeBSD/PF/ALTQ, you create on the firewall-rules tab. There is no more a rule tab at the traffic shaper config. Ermal best regards, Jan Hoevers
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Ermal Luçi wrote: Expected behaviour. Since ALTQ shapes on outgoing that shapes every thing that goes through the interface where the shaper is enabled. For 1.2, it should be noted. For 1.3, Ermal has done a nice job completely rewriting the traffic shaper to accommodate these kinds of situations and more. The traffic shaper in 1.2 only works properly with two interface setups (LAN and WAN).
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?
Expected behaviour. Since ALTQ shapes on outgoing that shapes every thing that goes through the interface where the shaper is enabled. On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Daniele Guazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just noticed that although the traffic shaper is configured only between WAN and LAN the other interfaces are affected too. I started an scp transfer between OPT1 and LAN and with traffic shaper enabled I get 590KB/s, disabled 1.2MB/s... Enabling or disabling it does not affect the CPU load so I still have plenty of CPU power to analyze and shape. It is a 1.2-RC4. Bug or hidden feature ? -- regards - Daniele Guazzoni Senior Network Engineer, CCNP, CCNA Linux and AMD-x86_64 or do you still with Windows and Intel ? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailGate, and is believed to be clean.
