Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
On 5/2/06, Carl Youngblood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you are volunteerig to get this working? Keep in mind we do not have endless amounts of resources. I'm totally willing to help with this, but if the developers aren't open to the idea, then it can be a really uphill battle. So I wanted to make sure you guys were supportive of the idea, especially since I am not nearly as skilled with BSD as you guys are. But I am willing to help out, and our sysadmin here also has some good linux experience and some exposure to BSD. As long as you guys are willing to point us in the right direction on occasion. We're willing and want some subset of packages on embedded platforms. However, we don't have the resources to put it in ourselves - it's a fair amount of work to make it stable. Also, embedded platforms usually have a limited amount of RAM (my two development WRAPs for example have 64M RAM - the absolute minimum pfSense will even run on) - I can't imagine losing any RAM on most of those platforms for ramdisk. So, we need a way to determine how much ram and/or ramdisk a package will require and detect if your machine is even qualified to run it. Currently, it's easier to disable the functionality as it's a very conditional item. Anyone willing to make it work and make it work right is welcome to try - just understand that it's not as simple as well I've got a 256M embedded box and it'll work here, so it must be good. --Bill
Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
Christoph Hanle wrote: Carl Youngblood schrieb: On 5/2/06, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/2/06, Carl Youngblood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am new to pfsense and have a question and a suggestion. I just installed pfsense on a brand new appliance that we bought from linitx.com, found here: http://linitx.com/product_info.php?cPath=4products_id=909osCsid=9be4eef80f6c2fa682ad294a2e92d3dc It seems to work well, except that when I go to the traffic shaping menu item, it says that my interface doesn't support altq. This is critical to us, as we use voip for our phone system. Any suggestions? I would be surprised to hear that there isn't some way to do QoS on this brand new device. Which device? If it says that ALTQ is not supported then its not, unfortunately. Realtek 8169 for the 5 100 Mbit ports Realtek 8139 for the 1 Gigabit port Imho are these chipsets a joke and not usable in a firewall or router. You will get a lot of trouble with this scrap. I had similar boxes running with pfSense and m0n0wall and trouble with the stability and performance of some connections. After replacing the boxes with smaller PCs with real NICs the problems are vanished. I think the latest-generation RealTek's are not that bad - I may be wrong, because I avoid them like the plague myself, but ISTR having read somewhere that the latest generation is somehow better than the the 1st generation (on which the comment in the source is really targeted). cheers, Rainer
Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
I'm using realtek nics in our ipcop firewall with QoS right now and it is doing fine. This motherboard was actually meant to be a router, so I don't think they would have chosen an unuseable chipset. On 5/2/06, Christoph Hanle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Realtek 8169 for the 5 100 Mbit ports Realtek 8139 for the 1 Gigabit port Imho are these chipsets a joke and not usable in a firewall or router. You will get a lot of trouble with this scrap. I had similar boxes running with pfSense and m0n0wall and trouble with the stability and performance of some connections. After replacing the boxes with smaller PCs with real NICs the problems are vanished. bye Christoph
Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
You're assuming that IPCop's primary motivation is for supporting only the highest quality hardware, when in fact they have no such goals. They are supporting the most common hardware to make a very simple firewall package that even a mouthbreathing retard can figure out. Don't assume that simply because they have support for Realtek hardware (which is notoriously crappy) that this must make the hardware high quality. -Gary Carl Youngblood wrote: I'm using realtek nics in our ipcop firewall with QoS right now and it is doing fine. This motherboard was actually meant to be a router, so I don't think they would have chosen an unuseable chipset. On 5/2/06, Christoph Hanle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Realtek 8169 for the 5 100 Mbit ports Realtek 8139 for the 1 Gigabit port Imho are these chipsets a joke and not usable in a firewall or router. You will get a lot of trouble with this scrap. I had similar boxes running with pfSense and m0n0wall and trouble with the stability and performance of some connections. After replacing the boxes with smaller PCs with real NICs the problems are vanished. bye Christoph
Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
Didn't say that. I'm just saying that realtek hardware is working well running QoS with our existing firewall distro, so I know that it is physically possible to do so. I'm not trying to philosophise about the goals of the various firewall distros that are out there, nor about the intelligence level of ipcop users :-) On 5/2/06, Gary Buckmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're assuming that IPCop's primary motivation is for supporting only the highest quality hardware, when in fact they have no such goals. They are supporting the most common hardware to make a very simple firewall package that even a mouthbreathing retard can figure out. Don't assume that simply because they have support for Realtek hardware (which is notoriously crappy) that this must make the hardware high quality. -Gary Carl Youngblood wrote: I'm using realtek nics in our ipcop firewall with QoS right now and it is doing fine. This motherboard was actually meant to be a router, so I don't think they would have chosen an unuseable chipset. On 5/2/06, Christoph Hanle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Realtek 8169 for the 5 100 Mbit ports Realtek 8139 for the 1 Gigabit port Imho are these chipsets a joke and not usable in a firewall or router. You will get a lot of trouble with this scrap. I had similar boxes running with pfSense and m0n0wall and trouble with the stability and performance of some connections. After replacing the boxes with smaller PCs with real NICs the problems are vanished. bye Christoph
Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
Understandably so, but you also have to understand that fundamentally, the way QoS in Linux (ala. IPCop) is done is different than the way ALTQ works with pfSense. The facilities provided by the NIC driver are really what make ALTQ functionality work. As such, you can't make an apples to apples comparison of Linux QoS and ALTQ on BSD. If the BSD driver doesn't have the facility support for the hooks that ALTQ uses, you can either hack up the driver and add the functionality, or find a better card. In the case of RealTek, I'd encourage you to find a better card. Carl Youngblood wrote: Didn't say that. I'm just saying that realtek hardware is working well running QoS with our existing firewall distro, so I know that it is physically possible to do so. I'm not trying to philosophise about the goals of the various firewall distros that are out there, nor about the intelligence level of ipcop users :-) On 5/2/06, Gary Buckmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're assuming that IPCop's primary motivation is for supporting only the highest quality hardware, when in fact they have no such goals. They are supporting the most common hardware to make a very simple firewall package that even a mouthbreathing retard can figure out. Don't assume that simply because they have support for Realtek hardware (which is notoriously crappy) that this must make the hardware high quality. -Gary Carl Youngblood wrote: I'm using realtek nics in our ipcop firewall with QoS right now and it is doing fine. This motherboard was actually meant to be a router, so I don't think they would have chosen an unuseable chipset. On 5/2/06, Christoph Hanle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Realtek 8169 for the 5 100 Mbit ports Realtek 8139 for the 1 Gigabit port Imho are these chipsets a joke and not usable in a firewall or router. You will get a lot of trouble with this scrap. I had similar boxes running with pfSense and m0n0wall and trouble with the stability and performance of some connections. After replacing the boxes with smaller PCs with real NICs the problems are vanished. bye Christoph
Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.
Chris Buechler wrote: Rainer Duffner wrote: I think the latest-generation RealTek's are not that bad - I may be wrong, because I avoid them like the plague myself, but ISTR having read somewhere that the latest generation is somehow better than the the 1st generation (on which the comment in the source is really targeted). I've heard the same thing. Just stumbled upon it: Theo mentioned it in the latest interview with kerneltrap. http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550 ;-) cheers, Rainer
