Re: [pfSense] pfSense version 2.1.1 has been released
On 2014-04-04 19:29, Chris Buechler wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Peder Rovelstad wrote: Worked for me on my home FW, but didn't reboot on own (I did receive mail message that it would reboot in 10 sec). Power cycle brought it back on the right slice. Looking good! Did you inadvertently switch architectures maybe? Going from 32 bit to 64 bit is the most common cause of that, when it finishes it can no longer execute the reboot binary as it's a 64 bit binary on a 32 bit running kernel. Out of curiosity, couldn't this be solved by including both a 32-bit and 64-bit binary and calling both? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] successor to ALIX is here
And you cannot eliminate three of this with a switch? Sounds like you should look at your design. -- Ryan Coleman > On Apr 4, 2014, at 22:59, Thinker Rix wrote: > >> On 2014-04-02 23:24, Ryan Coleman wrote: >> Wouldn’t a layer-3 switch be a good investment in this situation? Put the >> load on another device instead of, what is for all intents and (definitely) >> purpose a thin, light-weight piece of hardware? > > A switch? Not really, since I would like to have the 4+ NICs configured as > separate zones.. (e.g. WAN, LAN, DMZ, WLAN) > > -- > *Thinker Rix*, an internet user. > Please avoid TOFU in newsgroups and mailing lists > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting) > Bitte vermeidet TOFU in Newsgroups und Mailing-Listen > (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFU) > ___ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] successor to ALIX is here
On 2014-04-02 23:24, Ryan Coleman wrote: Wouldn't a layer-3 switch be a good investment in this situation? Put the load on another device instead of, what is for all intents and (definitely) purpose a /thin, light-weight/ piece of hardware? A switch? Not really, since I would like to have the 4+ NICs configured as separate zones.. (e.g. WAN, LAN, DMZ, WLAN) -- *Thinker Rix*, an internet user. Please avoid TOFU in newsgroups and mailing lists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting) Bitte vermeidet TOFU in Newsgroups und Mailing-Listen (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFU) ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] pfSense version 2.1.1 has been released
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Peder Rovelstad wrote: > > I auto-updated through the GUI. It is nano on a recycled Stonesoft SSL-400 > VPN appliance. VIA Esther proc, 1000MHz, Realteks, 4GB SLC SSD and 1GB RAM. > Ah, you definitely didn't switch architectures then or you would have bricked it since that's a 32 bit proc. I'd guess that system has one of the aforementioned quirks that prevents it from rebooting on its own in general. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] pfSense version 2.1.1 has been released
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Peder Rovelstad wrote: > Worked for me on my home FW, but didn't reboot on own (I did receive > mail message that it would reboot in 10 sec). Power cycle brought it > back on the right slice. Looking good! > Did you inadvertently switch architectures maybe? Going from 32 bit to 64 bit is the most common cause of that, when it finishes it can no longer execute the reboot binary as it's a 64 bit binary on a 32 bit running kernel. Though sounds like that's nano, where that wouldn't apply. Other than that, ACPI issues tend to comprise the other scenarios where the system won't reboot, but that's a scenario where the system wouldn't ever successfully reboot on its own, it'd get stuck in the process of trying to do so and hang until you power cycle it. What hardware is it? ___ I auto-updated through the GUI. It is nano on a recycled Stonesoft SSL-400 VPN appliance. VIA Esther proc, 1000MHz, Realteks, 4GB SLC SSD and 1GB RAM. Board - http://portwell.industrialpartner.com/products-p/ppap-2020vl.htm Box - http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/reviews/145317/stonesoft-stonegate-ssl-400 ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] pfSense version 2.1.1 has been released
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Peder Rovelstad wrote: > Worked for me on my home FW, but didn't reboot on own (I did receive mail > message that it would reboot in 10 sec). Power cycle brought it back on the > right slice. Looking good! > Did you inadvertently switch architectures maybe? Going from 32 bit to 64 bit is the most common cause of that, when it finishes it can no longer execute the reboot binary as it's a 64 bit binary on a 32 bit running kernel. Though sounds like that's nano, where that wouldn't apply. Other than that, ACPI issues tend to comprise the other scenarios where the system won't reboot, but that's a scenario where the system wouldn't ever successfully reboot on its own, it'd get stuck in the process of trying to do so and hang until you power cycle it. What hardware is it? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] pfSense version 2.1.1 has been released
Worked for me on my home FW, but didn't reboot on own (I did receive mail message that it would reboot in 10 sec). Power cycle brought it back on the right slice. Looking good! I really shouldn't do these things when I'm on call. :/ ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
[pfSense] pfSense version 2.1.1 has been released
Please see the blog post https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=1238 or changelog https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.1.1_New_Features_and_Changes for details. Happy upgrading. Jim ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
