2010/11/3 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl:
Hi,
1. Why PF 4.2 not 4.7 or 4.8?
OpenBSD page http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html
has one important remark bolded: In particular, there are
significant differences between 4.6 and 4.7.
Doeas it mean that I would have to learn something
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:04:21 +0200
Stathis Kamperis ekamp...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/3 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl:
Hi,
1. Why PF 4.2 not 4.7 or 4.8?
OpenBSD page http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html
has one important remark bolded: In particular, there are
significant
FreeBSD and NetBSD with ten times bigger teams still use PF from
OpenBSD 3.*? There isn't single initiative to change that, moreover
FreeBSD is sticking with ipfw and NetBSD started creating own
implementation - NPF.
There was discussion here and there, why they started creating NPF
instead of
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 00:28:29 +0100, Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl
wrote:
Hi,
1. Why PF 4.2 not 4.7 or 4.8?
Going from pf as included in OpenBSD 3.5 to the version in OpenBSD 4.2
already included changing some ten thousands line of code, including
changing network subsystems that are
2010/11/3 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:04:21 +0200
Stathis Kamperis ekamp...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/3 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl:
Hi,
1. Why PF 4.2 not 4.7 or 4.8?
OpenBSD page http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html
has one important remark
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:29:34 +0200
Stathis Kamperis ekamp...@gmail.com wrote:
(...)
Besides, just think of it. As the OpenBSD team ***did*** the work
(for others, DF including) why not to jump to the latest version? Is
not justified such thinking?
1. They did not do the work for DF nor
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:16:54 +0100
Jan Lentfer jan.lent...@web.de wrote:
I have to say one thing, too: Your demands towards this project in
regard to documentation, actuality, features, etc, are pretty high,
Should I choose the list common denominator?
First of all I said/pointed at that DF
* Przemys??aw Pawe??czyk wrote:
First of all I said/pointed at that DF lacks PF Guide known from
OpenBSD. Yes, my language was demanding the more so DF PF 4.2 is
different from PF 4.7+. The MAN page is not enough, some examples like
the OpenBSD's Firewall for Home or Small Office would be
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:21:42 +0100, Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl
wrote:
1. I understand that someone will put PF 4.2 guide on DF WWW.
You just volunteered?
[...]
4. I do know nothing about packet filters future implementations in
DF:
a) was the PF 4.2 implemented verbatim or was it
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:56:42 +0100
Jan Lentfer jan.lent...@web.de wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:21:42 +0100, Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl
wrote:
1. I understand that someone will put PF 4.2 guide on DF WWW.
You just volunteered?
Nope. :-( I answered why privately to one of the Mail
I run top and it says that 55% of the processor time is in user processes and
45% is in system. But the process percentages add up to only 2%, usually just
xulrunner-bin (i.e. Firefox). How do I find what else is taking up time? I
killed the process that had the most accumulated time, which was
Am 03.11.2010 19:42, schrieb Pierre Abbat:
I run top and it says that 55% of the processor time is in user processes and
45% is in system. But the process percentages add up to only 2%, usually just
xulrunner-bin (i.e. Firefox). How do I find what else is taking up time? I
killed the process
Hi,
A quick (I hope!) question re: HAMMER.
I've obviously read that it's intended for a minimum filesystem size of
50GB, but if I wanted to try it out on a smaller size what sort of
problems am I likely to see?
Cheers,
Steve
--
SDF Public Access UNIX System - est. 1987
==
Am 03.11.2010 22:11, schrieb Steve:
I've obviously read that it's intended for a minimum filesystem size of
50GB, but if I wanted to try it out on a smaller size what sort of
problems am I likely to see?
Filesystem filling up very quickly. You could try to reduce the amount
of historic data to
Hi,
this thread has some info about this:
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/users/2010-04/msg00195.html
Regards,
Jonas
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Steve spk+dfus...@sdf.org wrote:
Hi,
A quick (I hope!) question re: HAMMER.
I've obviously read that it's intended for a minimum
Am 03.11.2010 22:11, schrieb Steve:
I've obviously read that it's intended for a minimum filesystem size of
50GB, but if I wanted to try it out on a smaller size what sort of
problems am I likely to see?
Filesystem filling up very quickly. You could try to reduce the amount
of historic data
On Wednesday 03 November 2010 15:52:12 Jan Lentfer wrote:
Try running top -S to see the system threads also
It shows idle 0, softclock 0, and syncer, but still no process taking up huge
amounts of CPU time.
Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Jan Lentfer jan.lent...@web.de wrote:
if you just formulate your emails a little less
demanding. I get the impression that you are trying to goad people involved
in this project - on purpose or by weakness of character, I haven't found
out yet. Of course I hope
18 matches
Mail list logo
