2.0.2 ???
-
There really isn't anything holding back 2.0.2 still, just time.
2.1 has plenty of things holding it back. -
Hi,
Is there any milestone or timeline for pfSense project?
-
We don't keep one officially, but redmine tracks it:
http://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/roadmapWe never did have an official entry/designation for 2.0.2 in there.
-
As I indicated in the original post.
2.0.2 release is exceptional.
My system runs dual quad xeons, has 26 nics comprised of 12 low bandwidth ISP's balanced into one tier and numerous servers and appliances attached to the remaining 14 nics.
It is a very busy system, and not so much as one hickup, belch, burp, or f*rt.
It has performed even more error free than did 2.0.1 which was excellent.
I have the last (I guess you would call it pre release - release) 2.0.2 iso before it was taken down.
I have no idea what's really going on here, but if you want the last version that was in the public domain let me know. -
As I've said, we have the images, it's mostly that the right people haven't had enough time to get the release formally signed and rolled out.
Actually I found a couple more issues with the images today, and also added a warning about PPTP being compromised (not specific to pfSense, PPTP as a whole has been cracked), so there will be another round of new images.
-
How has PPTP been cracked??
-
https://isc.sans.edu/diary/End+of+Days+for+MS-CHAPv2/13807
https://www.cloudcracker.com/blog/2012/07/29/cracking-ms-chap-v2/ -
2.1 has plenty of things holding it back.
Isn't 2.1 supposed to be out by 18th October, in time for EuroBSDCon 2012?
-
Dont think it will happen….
-
Dont think it will happen….
That's a shame. I was really looking forward to it. From an outside perspective, it looks almost like the pfSense project is grinding to a halt…
-
From my POV, then v.2.0.1 has taken steps in the wrong direction regarding user friendlyness.
Its very obvious that it is nerds that has designed the GUI and you have to do a lot of manouvering in the menus to accomplish basic tasks.
2.0.1 also has the disadvantage that it consumes a lot of CPU running virtualized as many do now a days.
If you colocate and pay by the CPU use, it could get expensive in the end. 1.2.3 doesnt have these issues at all.
You see a lot of help done here on the forums that comes down to a not so intuitive user interface.
It could be a lot better!
I look forward to 2.0.2 since the ISO tested didnt perform as well as 1.2.3 and NAT was unstable in reflection state.
I hope this is solved in 2.0.2. Otherwise 1.2.3 will stay a little longer.
-
That's a shame. I was really looking forward to it. From an outside perspective, it looks almost like the pfSense project is grinding to a halt…
If someone only watches the blog, maybe. But anyone taking even a passing glance at the forum, github, redmine, etc, can see there is constant activity.
From my POV, then v.2.0.1 has taken steps in the wrong direction regarding user friendlyness.
Its very obvious that it is nerds that has designed the GUI and you have to do a lot of manouvering in the menus to accomplish basic tasks.
2.0.1 also has the disadvantage that it consumes a lot of CPU running virtualized as many do now a days.
If you colocate and pay by the CPU use, it could get expensive in the end. 1.2.3 doesnt have these issues at all.
You see a lot of help done here on the forums that comes down to a not so intuitive user interface.
It could be a lot better!
I look forward to 2.0.2 since the ISO tested didnt perform as well as 1.2.3 and NAT was unstable in reflection state.
I hope this is solved in 2.0.2. Otherwise 1.2.3 will stay a little longer.
Not sure how the 2.0.x GUI is all that different from 1.2.3 in the way you describe. Main difference is the dashboard but that has nothing to do with navigating from page to page. In 2.1 I've made navigation quite a lot easier with the shortcut bar that lets you easily move between pages in the same "section" such as if you're looking at DHCP settings, you can see the service status right on the page, go to the logs, leases, etc. without digging through the menus to find the other entries.
I've not heard of 2.0.x using more CPU than 1.2.3 in general, and we have a ton of customers running 2.x in production environments colocated/virtualized.
-
Many are reporting extensive use of CPU on host running 2.0.1 virtualized….
-
Where? I don't recall seeing them, but then I don't watch the virtualization part of the forum all that closely. I don't recall any of our customers complaining though.
The only CPU-based complaints I remember are people who had polling enabled and didn't understand what it really was/did and didn't need it. They believed they were maxing out their CPU all the time when in reality that's just how polling works and reports CPU usage, it just changed how visible that was to the user, it didn't actually change the amount of CPU used.
-
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=41647.0
-
First hit on Google….
-
Ah, seems there are a few people in there (not just esx, but kvm, proxmox, etc) having the issue and some also not seeing any issue at all. Difficult to tell from that if it's their hardware, something specific to FreeBSD/pfSense, or if it even was the same behavior on older versions. Not really enough data there to point a finger in general. It's certainly not happening on any of our ESX gear that we run. That's more suited for that other topic, not here though.
-
Thx Jim!
-
Also I wouldn't expect 2.0.2 to be any different - same base OS as 2.0 and 2.0.1.
2.1 might be different.
-
That's a shame. I was really looking forward to it. From an outside perspective, it looks almost like the pfSense project is grinding to a halt…
Well, the overall development activity (github commits & addressing of open issues at redmine) during past 6 months, does appear to be at a much lower level than the same period last year (while working on v2.0) …
