-
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) …
-
Last year at this time we were finalizing the 2.0 release, which was huge, and there were a lot more issues (especially with upgrades) that makes it hard to compare against, plus it was in the late RC stage. At the moment we are addressing things but the main problems are quite deep down in the OS/Kernel mostly, so there aren't as many people that can hack on those parts.
Once we get over a couple hurdles there and do an official BETA release of 2.1 activity will likely increase as more things get noticed that everyone can work on.
-
Why not just update the driver instead of the OS??
Why not try and keep it simple?
Make service packs and do updates along the way instead of trying to create something entirely new every time?
It takes time and by the time your done, then a new OS version has been released!
-
It's not that simple. Not by a long shot.
Plus there are many other improvements in the OS in general that are good to have. -
Please do let me know if there is any unofficial pfSense 2.0.2-RELEASE. Send me private message.
Thanks
-
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.
You keep mentioning this, but all I ever saw was that you misconfigured your port forwards with a source port when you shouldn't have. Nevertheless, there are some NAT reflection fixes in 2.0.2 that were backported from 2.1. 2.1 has some more NAT reflection changes that were not appropriate to backport to 2.0.2.
-
Good! I dont have source ports on my rules at all :D
So it must have been someone else. I saw the change coming in 2.1 and looking forward to it.
20th october is EuroBSD in Warsaw and if you plan to deply the 2.1 by then, 2.0.2 have no meaning…
-
We're now approaching 5 weeks since the 2.0 code branch was marked as 2.0.2-RELEASE, and still it hasn't seen the light of day. Is there something that the community can do to help move this release process along?
-
Not really, as I've said several times throughout this thread it's mostly about the right people having enough time to do some final tests and get things signed and released.
-
20th october is EuroBSD and the 2.1 should be out by then?
-
That would be nice, but I'm not sure it's going to happen. There are quite a few showstoppers left and we haven't even had a formal beta yet, let alone an RC.
-
What the current showstoppers??
