From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 18 11:10:31 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466C087B for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:10:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emz@norma.perm.ru) Received: from elf.hq.norma.perm.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:14c0::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00B0D1B for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:10:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.248.34] ([192.168.248.34]) by elf.hq.norma.perm.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2IBAPuI029057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:10:26 +0600 (YEKT) (envelope-from emz@norma.perm.ru) Message-ID: <5146F61E.3040601@norma.perm.ru> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:10:22 +0600 From: "Eugene M. Zheganin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: carp regression in 9.1 ? References: <3B04FCB1-D0D4-4BC9-BB15-5221F438738C@my.gd> <514594D7.1020202@norma.perm.ru> <39FC9737-4F34-4978-BDFE-17410CD2E5C4@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <39FC9737-4F34-4978-BDFE-17410CD2E5C4@my.gd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (elf.hq.norma.perm.ru [192.168.3.10]); Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:10:27 +0600 (YEKT) X-Spam-Status: No hits=-101.0 bayes=0.5 testhits ALL_TRUSTED=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on elf.hq.norma.perm.ru X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:10:31 -0000 Hi. On 18.03.2013 14:23, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > I'm afraid I can't afford 10.x, this is for production, although I acknowledge the problems you're faced with. > > Regarding 8.x, this is a guest VM running on proxmox 2.3 which doesn't support stock 8.x (need the virtio kernel option, I'll get a thread reference when I hit work). > > So yeah I'm kinda fucked here... ;) > This is of course up to you to decide, but I feel like I should encourage you - 10.x isn't that scarry as it seems to be. I also run it on a production (though my production may be not as harsh as yours), - this is a main router for a LAN consisting of 500+ machines, it also runs a squid proxy with 200+ active users (AD integrated, winbind, kerberos and stuff) and a HFSC traffic shaper. Plus, a bunch of routing protocols - ospf, ospfv3 and a load of network services like SMTP/HTTP/DHCP. Plus, it's a zfs installation. At least, after upgrade from 9.1-STABLE to a random -CURRENT I didn't notice any degradation, only improvements. I had all of your fears right before the upgrade, none of it became real. Eugene.