Is pfBlockerNG Devel stable?

emammadov

Thank you very much for your advices. I would like to know that, will pfBlockereng have the new same improvements and functionalities as pfBlockereng-Devel version has?

BBcan177

@emammadov

After a period of testing, devel will become pfBlockerNG.

emammadov

@bbcan177 Since the Devel version is not stable, but pfBlockereng is stable. I mean, the main pfBlockereng will have the same functionalities as we see in devel version?

BBcan177

@emammadov just because it's devel doesn't mean it's not stable. There are many fixes in devel that are not in pfBlockerNG.

It won't be long before I push devel as the next pfBlockerNG version.

If no one supports testing, no bugs are found. So it's also a catch22 when everyone waits for the other users to test new functionality.

Development software is development software. If that isn't clear then it's not for you. That said, I'll add my thoughts on THIS specific package.

I've been using it for a month or so with no problems. For me that means: I upgraded from the stable package and set it up with an understanding of what it would and would not do. That has been true in this case, no surprises. :)
@BBcan177 is VERY attentive here and in other forums. For reasons known only to him he cares about this package a LOT as evidenced by the time he puts into answering questions and pushing fixes as issues arise. :) :)
Labeling the package as development in it's current state is honest. Too many packages (not specifically referencing pfsense packages, but software in general) are pushed out as stable when the reality is they are in an unknown state and the developer wants the community to test it. :) :) :)

JeGr

@jwj said in Is pfBlockerNG Devel stable?:

Development software is development software. If that isn't clear then it's not for you. That said, I'll add my thoughts on THIS specific package.

I've been using it for a month or so with no problems. For me that means: I upgraded from the stable package and set it up with an understanding of what it would and would not do. That has been true in this case, no surprises. :)

@BBcan177 is VERY attentive here and in other forums. For reasons known only to him he cares about this package a LOT as evidenced by the time he puts into answering questions and pushing fixes as issues arise. :) :)

Labeling the package as development in it's current state is honest. Too many packages (not specifically referencing pfsense packages, but software in general) are pushed out as stable when the reality is they are in an unknown state and the developer wants the community to test it. :) :) :)

Couldn't describe it any better than that. Agree (and dito) to all three points wholeheartedly. Especially #3. In times with early access and never ending betas people tend to get confused about the state of software. It's nice to see a project/developer working like a role model you could recommend to others. Thanks for that @BBcan177

BBcan177

@jegr @jwj

Thank you both for your words... means a lot ... I caught the open source bug awhile ago, and I wish everyone would get more involved.

You don't need to code... there is always help needed with testing, answering questions in the forum/reddit etc, and documentation to say the least...

Thanks!

Qinn

@emammadov said in Is pfBlockerNG Devel stable?:

@bbcan177 Since the Devel version is not stable, but pfBlockereng is stable. I mean, the main pfBlockereng will have the same functionalities as we see in devel version?

It's very stable and I would really recommend it. IMHO BBcan177 is a very cautious man (which is good b.t.w.) to still call it develop, but that's entirely up to him.

There are many more features, so it's much more than an upgrade from 2.1 to 2.2 would suggest. To name but one, the DNSBL section, it's really superb, now anyone can pick and choose from the many feeds that are listen in categories. So for anyone that found it hard or difficult to choose or select a feed, it's as easy as a few mouse clicks. You can add as many lists as you like (well limited by what your hardware can compute). So I can only say, 2 thumbs up!!

newyork10023

Can we confirm whether the (vicious) bug that caused pfBNG-devel to crash a pfSense guest VM instance under VMware ESXi has been fixed? It was some months ago that I tested pfBNG-devel. At that time, I found that after a day or so, pfBNG-devel would consistently crash pfSense running as a guest VM. I had to abandon testing.

BBcan177

@newyork10023 said in Is pfBlockerNG Devel stable?:

Can we confirm whether the (vicious) bug that caused pfBNG-devel to crash a pfSense guest VM instance under VMware ESXi has been fixed? It was some months ago that I tested pfBNG-devel. At that time, I found that after a day or so, pfBNG-devel would consistently crash pfSense running as a guest VM. I had to abandon testing.

I don't believe that I have seen this issue posted anywhere? Please provide more details so it can be investigated.

I have several VMs under ESXI and have not seen any issues myself.

newyork10023

@bbcan177 I did not post it to the bug forums, sorry. I did mention it on Reddit, I believe, where another user wrote it was crashing on them similarly. Doubt posting to Reddit was of help to you. Apologies.

I don't remember specifics now and I didn't capture logs on it. It was early in the development, and I ... yada, yada, yada ... was too busy (i.e., lazy) to report it.

There would be a message in the ESXi remote console display of the VM with something to the effect, "[VM crashed]" at the bottom of the window (don't remember exact wording).

I didn't do much testing because the VM crashed: it happened three times to my knowledge, very consistently after a day or so. ESXi might have crashed (?), but, in any event, I was concerned with its stability and would reboot. It is my suspicion that the VM would route traffic unfiltered without the benefit of pfSense (a machine developed "unrepairable corruption" afterwards).

I will repeat testing after I divert traffic through another (physical) pfSense box to isolate the VM in the event it crashes and routes traffic unfiltered. I setup the alternate pfSense after the issues I had with the VM (and a gf who was very upset with the inconvenience).

BBcan177

@newyork10023 said in Is pfBlockerNG Devel stable?:

@bbcan177 I did not post it to the bug forums, sorry. I did mention it on Reddit, I believe, where another user wrote it was crashing on them similarly. Doubt posting to Reddit was of help to you. Apologies.

What is your /reddit user? I will check it out... Or send me the reddit post to review.

But I don't think there is an issue with devel under ESXI... I would suggest trying again and then we can go from there to see if its a devel issue, or something else...

newyork10023

@bbcan177 Not the place for this, but since I have your attention. Can you add the EasyList for Romania, please? (The gf....)

BBcan177

@newyork10023 said in Is pfBlockerNG Devel stable?:

@bbcan177 Not the place for this, but since I have your attention. Can you add the EasyList for Romania, please? (The gf....)

What is the URL and I can check it out...

newyork10023

@bbcan177 Making the changes to my VLAN's now to re-route over the alternate pfSense.

And, it doesn't appear to be a Reddit post. Done some searching but I can't find the post.

newyork10023

@bbcan177 The list with which I am familar is pulled by uBlock Origin, but I cannot determine which exact list it is. I did find the following lists, and I expect one is the list pulled by uBO:

https://www.zoso.ro/pages/rolist.txt
https://www.zoso.ro/pages/rolist2.txt