Hyper-V ICS 1.0 (w/Synthethic Network Driver) for pfSense 2.1 & 2.1.1
-
I have this working across multiple hyper-v hosts with great stability, Zootie thanks a million
-
Please lay out the finished image.
-
First of all thanks to zootie for his work (and patience). Since there are lots of italian users of both pfSense and Hyper-V, I put together a step by step tutorial in italian to have zootie drivers loaded and running. The tutorial contains pics and descriptions. It can be useful for english speakers too, it is very "visual" and all the products snapshots are from English versions.
Just some questions, mainly for zootie:- looking at this thread, I'm not sure I can redistribute your drivers adding a mirror for them. The first place to search will always be the first post of this thread.
- are you going to publish updates to the drivers? Using 2.1.2 on Hyper-V 3 results in "drivers must be updated" (see the tutorial ending) and no IP address indication.
The tutorial is here (il tutorial in italiano è qui) http://goo.gl/oUYtN4
Thanks to all for helping pfSense to run on Hyper-V
Thanks for the guide, it was very helpful (with google translate)!
I am running 2.1.2 on Hyper-V in production as a router with a gigabit fiber connection, 8 synthetic interfaces and two IPSEC tunnels.
Did the same here, translated the Italian to English and then walked through it while setting up pfSense 2.1.3 under Hyper-V. Works like a charm! Connectivity speeds are lightening fast now. Have been looking for this for years. Thanks a lot to all who has made this possible! Really a shame that the pfSense crew doesn't allow for this to be downloadable. It helps many others.
-
Really a shame that the pfSense crew doesn't allow for this to be downloadable. It helps many others.
as a reminder, if it wasn't called "pfSense", it wouldn't be an issue.
We're so close to 2.2 (and the Hyper-V support is so much better in FreeBSD 10), that the strategy is to release a Hyper-V variant for 2.2.
-
@gonzopancho:
We're so close to 2.2 (and the Hyper-V support is so much better in FreeBSD 10), that the strategy is to release a Hyper-V variant for 2.2.
Awesome, good to hear! Can't wait. pfSense rocks :)
-
hi gonzopancho, hi all
i am new in this forum and we're thinking about using pfsense in our company. we would like to use it in a hyper-v vm on a win8.1 embedded machine.
@gonzopancho:
We're so close to 2.2 (and the Hyper-V support is so much better in FreeBSD 10), that the strategy is to release a Hyper-V variant for 2.2.
"so close" sounds nice :) any timelines on the progress of version 2.2? is the strategy still valid to release also a hyper-v variant?
i appreciate any information on it, thanks!!cheers, fele
-
hi gonzopancho, hi all
i am new in this forum and we're thinking about using pfsense in our company. we would like to use it in a hyper-v vm on a win8.1 embedded machine.
@gonzopancho:
We're so close to 2.2 (and the Hyper-V support is so much better in FreeBSD 10), that the strategy is to release a Hyper-V variant for 2.2.
"so close" sounds nice :) any timelines on the progress of version 2.2? is the strategy still valid to release also a hyper-v variant?
i appreciate any information on it, thanks!!cheers, fele
Don't hold your breath that 2.2 will fix this. I tested with one of the beta builds and could not get it to even boot reliably. I don't sense that pfsense folks really give a damn about hyper-v. Truth is visualization is quickly becoming the preeminent platform for infrastructure. Hyper-V is a very nice product with a premium feature set and is offered both for free as a stand alone product or bundled and neatly integrated with nearly all current desktop and server operating systems from Microsoft. Hyper-V is a major player that should not be ignored.
-
I've heard from several people who had no luck with 2.1.x versions that 2.2 is working fine for them in HyperV. There is also more we'll be doing there to get all the integration components working nicely.
Virtualization is among our most common usage scenarios. We spend a good deal of time ensuring such environments work well. For Hyper-V, that wasn't practical before Microsoft worked with NetApp, Citrix and others on FreeBSD support in Hyper-V. That started in 2012, and wasn't included until FreeBSD 10 (released this year).
It's not that we "don't give a damn about hyper-v", it's that Microsoft waited a long time before they gave a damn about FreeBSD.
VMware has always supported FreeBSD, and we've been widely used in VMware from day one. Now that Microsoft has caught up (over a decade later), we'll get to Hyper-V as well.
-
hi cmb
thanks for your comments!
as we need an official version (no BETA), are you able to give any thoughts about timelines? when will there be a first official release? end of Q3? end of this year?thanks, felix
-
As always, it'll be released when it's ready.
-
@cmb:
I've heard from several people who had no luck with 2.1.x versions that 2.2 is working fine for them in HyperV. There is also more we'll be doing there to get all the integration components working nicely.
Virtualization is among our most common usage scenarios. We spend a good deal of time ensuring such environments work well. For Hyper-V, that wasn't practical before Microsoft worked with NetApp, Citrix and others on FreeBSD support in Hyper-V. That started in 2012, and wasn't included until FreeBSD 10 (released this year).
It's not that we "don't give a damn about hyper-v", it's that Microsoft waited a long time before they gave a damn about FreeBSD.
VMware has always supported FreeBSD, and we've been widely used in VMware from day one. Now that Microsoft has caught up (over a decade later), we'll get to Hyper-V as well.
My apologies, I was far too rash and unfair, my impatience lead to frustration and venting. Pfsense did install and with some coaxing I did get it to run; the stability issues where probably due to it being an alpha build. I am sad to see a working revision of 2.1 be pulled from circulation when you could just as easily endorsed it as your own, I'm sure its originator would have donated it freely. Doing so would have satisfied trademark concerns.
-
@cmb:
It's not that we "don't give a damn about hyper-v", it's that Microsoft waited a long time before they gave a damn about FreeBSD.
VMware has always supported FreeBSD, and we've been widely used in VMware from day one. Now that Microsoft has caught up (over a decade later), we'll get to Hyper-V as well.
I think there are reasons on both sides. Microsoft concentrated on Windows (of course), then for the "exotic" systems integrated Linux and only then BSD. Now it's a very fast growing hypervisor, being integrated in all Windows versions, so for a Virtual-aware project it just can't be ignored.
I think there are at least two levels of support:- just wait for FreeBSD project progress
- spend time and money and prepare some modules that will integrate on boot in the current version.
I vote for the second one :), once created the first setup like in my tutorial, it should be easy to auto-configure it in pfSense.
-
@cmb:
I've heard from several people who had no luck with 2.1.x versions that 2.2 is working fine for them in HyperV. There is also more we'll be doing there to get all the integration components working nicely.
Virtualization is among our most common usage scenarios. We spend a good deal of time ensuring such environments work well. For Hyper-V, that wasn't practical before Microsoft worked with NetApp, Citrix and others on FreeBSD support in Hyper-V. That started in 2012, and wasn't included until FreeBSD 10 (released this year).
It's not that we "don't give a damn about hyper-v", it's that Microsoft waited a long time before they gave a damn about FreeBSD.
VMware has always supported FreeBSD, and we've been widely used in VMware from day one. Now that Microsoft has caught up (over a decade later), we'll get to Hyper-V as well.
My apologies, I was far too rash and unfair, my impatience lead to frustration and venting. Pfsense did install and with some coaxing I did get it to run; the stability issues where probably due to it being an alpha build. I am sad to see a working revision of 2.1 be pulled from circulation when you could just as easily endorsed it as your own, I'm sure its originator would have donated it freely. Doing so would have satisfied trademark concerns.
I've been running pfsense (2.1.1 -> 2.1.2 -> 2.1.3) on Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 with zootie's drivers and instructions since last April and the stability has been good. There are some annoyances like RRD graphs stalling out but since this is technically bleeding edge I'm not surprised at minor issues.
-
With hearing about 2.2 including multiple DHCP servers via VLANS from the same physical interface, I am seriously looking forward to this, especially if it works with hyper-v
-
I got pfSense up and running on Hyper-V 2012 R2 with the legacy Network adapter.
Where can I find proper hyper-v drivers for pfSense so I can use the default Network Adapter?Thanks for your help,
Newbie Thomas -
Changed to pfSense 2.2.
Details here: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=75549.0 -
Not to drag up on a old topic but:
we got PFsense 100% working on Xen and Hyper-v
with all hyper-v drivers, fully working Carp, multi-subnetting, etc.We notified Jim this week and awaiting his reply on arrangements to publish this as a PFSense build.
Regards,
Marco -
unless we build it, it's not going to be called "pfSense".
You've not offered the patches.
In any case, the strategy here is 2.2 with native support for Hyper-V
-
Well,
We send you an email about making arrangements to publish it (i do believe Angelo is awaiting reply).
As far as native Hyper-V support: it's not just about the drivers of hyper-v that is easy.
Carp however needs ALOT of changes to make it 100% functional with virtualized environments.We have made it all work 100% (and our own systems been running live on it without a hitch for a while now).
As far as the PFSense name and publishing: you don't need to repeat that, but as i said before: easy to fork and rename (also supported by your agreement).
Though preferred method (for everyone) would be publishing arrangements with PFSense which is why Angelo is waiting for a reply by mail.
Regards,
Marco -
As far as the PFSense name and publishing: you don't need to repeat that, but as i said before: easy to fork and rename (also supported by your agreement).
Why do people always assume that I (of all people) don't understand this?
Though preferred method (for everyone) would be publishing arrangements with PFSense which is why Angelo is waiting for a reply by mail.
I agree, but "publishing arrangements" sounds like you want to get paid. Why not just issue pull requests?