Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread openbsd
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:42:23PM -0500, Alan McKay wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Josh Grosse wrote: > > 100Mbit? You could go even smaller, such as the PCEngines Alix > > platform. They are 32-bit (i386) only, however. > > > > Each NIC is able to sustain

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Josh Grosse
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:42:23PM -0500, Alan McKay wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Josh Grosse wrote: > > 100Mbit? You could go even smaller, such as the PCEngines Alix > > platform. They are 32-bit (i386) only, however. > > > > Each NIC is able to sustain

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Martin Schröder
2016-03-11 22:42 GMT+01:00 Alan McKay : > Ideally I'd like to get a redundant pair of FWs in 1U. > But I need 4 NICs on each as a bare min. Lanner FW-7525 Best Martin

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Alan McKay
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Josh Grosse wrote: > 100Mbit? You could go even smaller, such as the PCEngines Alix > platform. They are 32-bit (i386) only, however. > > Each NIC is able to sustain 70-80 Mbps, in my experience. Do those have 4 NICs? Ideally I'd like

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Alan McKay
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Brandon Vincent wrote: > If you have a pair setup for redundancy, it really comes down to the > expected network utilization. What sort of network are we talking > about? Well I guess I'd place them according to their capability. Could I

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Brandon Vincent
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alan McKay wrote: > Opinions on using either of those as a redundant pair for corporate use? If you have a pair setup for redundancy, it really comes down to the expected network utilization. What sort of network are we talking about?

Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Alan McKay
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > Nope. You might want a Supermicro X11SBA-LN4F or maybe Netgate's > RCC-VE 2440 if you need 4 ports. Opinions on using either of those as a redundant pair for corporate use? -- "You should sit in nature for 20 minutes

Re: Does a softraid partition require an fdisk partition

2016-03-11 Thread Brian Conway
> Since the softraid volume doesn't have the base OS installed on it, and will > never be used as a "boot device," I think I am ok, but am not sure. You are correct. Brian

Does a softraid partition require an fdisk partition

2016-03-11 Thread Theodore Wynnychenko
Hello I recently changed disks in an openbsd system. Everything went smoothly, as expected. I dumped the old filesystems; installed the new disks; created "fdisk partitions" on the physical drives; made "disklabel partitions" on the physical drives; setup a softraid0; created the "disklabel

Watchdog issue

2016-03-11 Thread Sjöholm Per-Olov
Hi Yes I after upgrade had a watchdog issue on the em driver and created a lot of patch diffs of this from cvs without getting rid of the issue. I also tried 5.8 and a lot of em diffs after 5.8. But this problem lead to the fact I reverted two firewalls to 5.4. Now… I could see at

Re: Computer hangup : scsi_xfer pool exhausted!

2016-03-11 Thread Joris Vanhecke
I'm experiencing the same thing. OpenBSD5.8-STABLE on vmware. The message is repeatedly spammed to the console.

Re: unbound eats up buffer space

2016-03-11 Thread Kapetanakis Giannis
On 11/03/16 04:15, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2016-03-08, Brian Conway wrote: Are you using pf queues? I most frequently see that happen when there's no space left in a queue. `pfctl -v -s queue` This is the most likely cause. Other than that, very busy unbound