Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:13:26 +0200
From:      olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
To:        freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: PF bugs
Message-ID:  <51C60566.4080306@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <51C5F242.1010608@gmx.com>
References:  <1371865788.22524.9.camel@localhost> <CAOmxWMXfKyr5gjQUpqqraTVaLJ3XOFNK7P040FPOCSaMGigXdA@mail.gmail.com> <51C5F242.1010608@gmx.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-06-22 20:51, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
> Hi Chris (and list),
> 
> On 06/22/2013 04:44 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
>> pf is actively developed and maintained on FreeBSD, and widely used.
>> The PRs that are open are largely ages old, no longer relevant and
>> need to be cleaned up, or were bunk to begin with. There aren't really
>> that many open either considering, every component of any widely used
>> OS has open bugs. That's not indicative of anything in itself
>> generally. FreeBSD+pf is the base of a significant number of
>> firewalls, 180,000+ known live systems on pfSense alone (though that's
>> not quite stock FreeBSD pf, it's close), and many others.
> 
> It seems that people think that pf is unmaintained.
> Quite a disheartening thing for the person that did the hard work
> to create the smp-friendly pf in FreeBSD-10...
> 
> I would be very happy if you had some performance comparison numbers
> between the old and new pf code that you would like to publish!
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Nikos
> 

Even I have no numbers Gleb posted a view graphs

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2012-June/006662.html

The graphs are still available and based on Gleb's first work, I guess the numbers are even better.

--
olli



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51C60566.4080306>