Poor response time with thousands of vlan interfaces
-
Actually with that commit when I go to create a vlan, the parent interface drop-down is empty.
-
ifconfig -l have the configured interfaces.
em0 em1 em2 plip0 pflog0 pfsync0 enc0 lo0 em1_vlan999 em1_vlan1000 em1_vlan1001 em1_vlan1002 em1_vlan1003 em1_vlan1004 em1_vlan1005 em1_vlan1006 em1_vlan1007 em1_vlan1008 em1_vlan1009 em1_vlan1010 em1_vlan1011 em1_vlan1012 em1_vlan1013 em1_vlan1014 ......(omited....)config.xml is attatched, please strip .txt suffix before unzip it, since it's over 250KB.
I meet the same situation jimp meets, no parent interface in drop-down list. But the vlan interfaces are created before apply that commit.
-
Heh jimp good catch :)
This is the correction https://github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense/commit/aad163a9338995609363cdac0e97c606eeb58e9c
-
Works for me after that commit. :-)
-
Works for me after that commit. :-)
Me too.
Still cannot see vlan interfaces in assigning or bridging page. -
They show up for me in the assignment drop-down list. And if I assign and enable one, then it shows up to bridge (the list in bridge only shows assigned and enabled interfaces)
-
I double checked, assigning interface page drop-down list do have vlan interfaces now.
But my question is: since interfaces_bridge_edit.php get only configured interface as bridge member capable ones,48 $ifacelist = get_configured_interface_with_descr();Is there any need to assign them before we can add to bridge?
-
In 2.0 that is enforced to make sure the interface part of the bridge is always properly configured.
Generally, its not a requirement, but there needs to be some bookkeeping for bridge members and that is why it was not done for 2.0.
-
I understand that and thanks for your help!
-
Could this be purged to the official release pls :)
-
Ermal already committed that to RELENG_2_0, but it's not like we'd make a 2.0.2 just for that… so it will be an official release eventually, just not yet. If you want it in the meantime, feel free to sync your code to the current RELENG_2_0 code using gitsync.
-
Any updates on this matter??
Is it in the snapshots of 2.1??
-
Yes it should be in 2.1. Not sure what else there would be to "update" this - it was fixed in our repo (as I mentioned before) so it would be fixed in the next release.
