Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:08:33 +0200 From: "Kristof Provost" <kristof@sigsegv.be> To: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com> Cc: "Miroslav Lachman" <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, "FreeBSD PF List" <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is there an upper limit to PF's tables? Message-ID: <5C1BA1CA-5814-417F-BD9C-EC6E7F08588C@sigsegv.be> In-Reply-To: <05564c89db6cf667584dea5586602054@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <05564c89db6cf667584dea5586602054@udns.ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Jun 2018, at 0:19, Chris H wrote: > Sorry. Looks like I might be coming to the party a little late. But > I'm > currently running a 9.3 box that runs as a IP (service) filter for > much > of a network. While I've patched the box well enough to keep it safe > to > continue running. I am reluctant to up(grade|date) it to 11, or > CURRENT, > based on some of the information related to topics like this thread. > Currently, the 9.3 box maintains some 18 million entries *just* within > the SPAM related table. The other tables contain no less that 1 > million. > As it stands I have *no* trouble loading pf(4) with all of the tables > totaling some 20+ million entries, *even* when the BOX is working with > as little 4Gb ram. > Has something in pf(4) changed, since 9.3 that would now prevent me > from continuing to use my current setup, and tables? > No. There are no new limits in 11, and the only thing that *might* be an issue is validation improvements in 12. Still, anything that worked on 9 is expected to work on 12 (if not, report a bug). Please don’t keep running unsupported versions. Regards, Kristof
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5C1BA1CA-5814-417F-BD9C-EC6E7F08588C>