something wrong of ifconfig bridge0 addr - mac address appears on wrong interface
( untrust ) --- ( em0 , bridge0 , em1 ) --- ( trust ) Sometimes , I cannot connect to trust server from untrust. I log some information from ifconfig bridge0 addr. It seems some thing wrong of trust server's mac appear on em0. trust serv1's mac: 00:50:56:af:2e:43 trust serv2's mac: 00:50:56:af:75:63 STEP1: The serv2 is not shown in bridge addr. table tp-fw [~] -root- ifconfig bridge0 addr 00:50:56:af:2e:43 Vlan1 em1 1200 flags=0 64:9e:f3:06:52:03 Vlan1 em0 1192 flags=0 70:ca:9b:e3:a5:83 Vlan1 em0 1192 flags=0 70:ca:9b:e3:a5:c3 Vlan1 em0 1200 flags=0 STEP2: I ping the serv2's ip from untrust , and I got 100% packet loss. STEP3: show bridge addr. table again tp-fw [~] -root- ifconfig bridge0 addr 00:50:56:af:75:63 Vlan1 em0 1198 flags=0 00:50:56:af:2e:43 Vlan1 em1 1200 flags=0 64:9e:f3:06:52:03 Vlan1 em0 1150 flags=0 70:ca:9b:e3:a5:83 Vlan1 em0 1150 flags=0 70:ca:9b:e3:a5:c3 Vlan1 em0 1200 flags=0 OMG! It's wrong of the 00:50:56:af:75:63 is shown with em0 interface. STEP4: I ping the serv2's ip from tp-fw , and I got icmp reply. STEP5: show bridge addr. table again tp-fw [~] -root- ifconfig bridge0 addr 00:50:56:af:75:63 Vlan1 em1 1197 flags=0 00:50:56:af:2e:43 Vlan1 em1 1199 flags=0 64:9e:f3:06:52:03 Vlan1 em0 1170 flags=0 70:ca:9b:e3:a5:83 Vlan1 em0 1170 flags=0 70:ca:9b:e3:a5:c3 Vlan1 em0 1200 flags=0 The 00:50:56:af:75:63 is shown with em1 interface correctly. Why does STEP2 cause the wrong bridge addr table? How to solve it? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
packet filter problem on transparent firewall using bridge and pf
I have some trouble with pf on freebsd bridge.
Network topology:
( untrust ) -- { em0 , bridge0 , em1 } -- ( trust )
Bridge Network: 10.1.1.0/24
bridge0 IP: 10.1.1.1 ( freebsd's ip )
default gw: 10.1.1.254 ( in untrust area )
server: 10.1.1.101 ~ 200 ( in trust area )
pf.conf on freebsd
serv1=10.1.1.101
client1=10.1.6.73
block in all
block out all
pass in quick on lo0 all
pass out quick on lo0 all
pass in quick on bridge0 from 10.1.1.0/24 to any
pass out quick on bridge0 from 10.1.1.0/24 to any
pass in quick on bridge0 from $client1 to 10.1.1.1
pass in quick on bridge0 from $client1 to $serv1
When I turn on the pf, I test some connection status.
1. client1 cannot connect to serv1.
2. gw cannot connect to serv1
3. client1 connect to freebsd ( 10.1.1.1 ) successfully
4. gw connect to freebsd ( 10.1.1.1 ) successfully
If I turn off the pf, all conneciton test are success.
What's wrong with the pf rules?
The following is some description of the bridge topology.
Freebsd and server are vmware guest in the vmware ESXi.
The ESXi has two virtual switchs,
vSw1: connect to untrust
vSw2: interconnect with freebsd and servers
freebsd has tow vNICs,
em0: connect to vSw1
em1: connect to vSw2.
servers has only one vNIC,
em0: connect to vSw2
freebsd's rc.conf
cloned_interfaces=bridge0
ifconfig_bridge0=inet 10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 addm em0 addm em1 up
ifconfig_em0=up
ifconfig_em1=up
pf_enable=YES
pf_rules=/etc/pf.conf
freebsd's sysctl
net.link.bridge.ipfw: 0
net.link.bridge.inherit_mac: 0
net.link.bridge.log_stp: 0
net.link.bridge.pfil_local_phys: 0
net.link.bridge.pfil_member: 1
net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge: 1
net.link.bridge.ipfw_arp: 0
net.link.bridge.pfil_onlyip: 1
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
cache nfs file to local disk
Hello, There are the cachefs on Solaris and FS-Cache on RedHat can cache file from nfs to local disk, does any similar software can be run on FreeBSD? In order to reduce the throughput and ops for nas server, I just want to cache file from nfs to local disk. And the cache system can controller the total size of cache file automatically ( the capacity of nas is more more more large than local disk ). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it reliable to increase the MAXCPU in param.h ?
Testing Report: Server: HP DL785G5 , AMD Opteron 8356 * 8 ( 32 cores ) , 16G RAM DB: PostgreSQL 8.3.3 ( install from ports , default option ) Test tool: super-smack ( install from ports ) Disk: 146G SAS * 2 ( RAID 1 on HP P400 ) OS kernel: Just change the 4BSD to ULE , and increase the MAXCPU to 32. PGSQL's config : default postgresql.conf super-smack's source: default source file data command: repeat 10 super-smack -d pg select-key.smack [# of client] 1 And I calculate the average of the 10 results for each execution. # of client | query per sec. 01 | 5829 02 | 10663 03 | 14399 04 | 16713 05 | 19662 06 | 22434 07 | 25095 08 | 27464 09 | 29783 10 | 31697 11 | 33514 12 | 35298 13 | 36600 14 | 37721 15 | 38061 16 | 39065 17 | 40350 18 | 40525 19 | 41174 20 | 41721 21 | 41354 22 | 39321 23 | 37905 24 | 31794 25 | 29731 26 | 25782 27 | 26069 28 | 23780 29 | 19475 30 | 17867 31 | 17794 32 | 26065 33 | 35252 34 | 36010 35 | 34396 36 | 33878 2008/7/1, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ProAce wrote: Server: HP DL785G5 with 8 CPU ( 32 cores ) , 16G RAM OS: FreeBSD 7.0-amd64 Kernel 1: MAXCPU = 16 ( default ) Kernel 2: MAXCPU = 32 DL785G5 run with kernel 1 and kernel 2 both successfully, and the FreeBSD can detect the 16 CPUs and 32 CPUs normally ( using top -S command). If I use kernel 2 for postgresql 8.3, is it reliable and stable? 32 should be OK, but we haven't had access to such a machine yet (we briefly had access to a 16-core system but it melted) so we have not yet tuned for performance on it. FreeBSD 8.0 will run better if you are willing to use a development version of FreeBSD. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it reliable to increase the MAXCPU in param.h ?
Server: HP DL785G5 with 8 CPU ( 32 cores ) , 16G RAM OS: FreeBSD 7.0-amd64 Kernel 1: MAXCPU = 16 ( default ) Kernel 2: MAXCPU = 32 DL785G5 run with kernel 1 and kernel 2 both successfully, and the FreeBSD can detect the 16 CPUs and 32 CPUs normally ( using top -S command). If I use kernel 2 for postgresql 8.3, is it reliable and stable? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
