Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:38:01 -0700 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com> To: "Kristof Provost" <kristof@sigsegv.be> 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: <e4e00c5405a23b4d5362a2cabf2b11fa@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <5C1BA1CA-5814-417F-BD9C-EC6E7F08588C@sigsegv.be>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:08:33 +0200 "Kristof Provost" <kristof@sigsegv.be> said > 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). Thank you very much for the informative reply, Kristof! > > Please don’t keep running unsupported versions. You're reply leaves me little reason to think I need, or want to. :-) Thanks, again! --Chris > > Regards, > Kristof
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e4e00c5405a23b4d5362a2cabf2b11fa>