Slashdot Mirror
Firewall Failover With pfsync And CARP
Daniel Hartmeier writes "OpenBSD developer Ryan McBride explains the new firewall redundancy features in the upcoming OpenBSD 3.5 release in his article Firewall Failover with pfsync and CARP. CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol) is a free alternative to the patent-encumbered VRRP, responsible for electing masters in a firewall cluster, while pfsync syncronizes packet filter state information among nodes. The combination allows to replace single-point-of-failure firewalls with clusters of two (or more) nodes, which continue to filter ongoing and new connections when nodes fail. Additional features like arpbalance allow one to share a single IP address for multiple servers, transparently balancing load among them, and adapting to servers failing. Pre-order for OpenBSD 3.5 has started, CDs will ship May 1st."
Why would a /. editor include a mailto link to an OpenBSD developer in a story?
The poor bastard is going to be flooded with spam ad crap now.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Any relation to Darl?
I found an interesting picture of the CARP hardware they're using for this here.
Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house. All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dead
From Improving
Passive Packet Capture: Beyond Device Polling.
"Linux, a very popular OS used for running network appliances,
performs very poorly with respect to other OSs used in the same
test" (FreeBSD and Win2k).
"The Linux kernel module is almost as fast as the userspace
FreeBSD application".
Percentage of packets captured (in user space), using device polling, at
80,000 packets per second? Linux 5.6%, FreeBSD 99.9%. Linux manages
99.5% only using a kernel module.
SO LINUX MUST GO TO KERNEL SPACE TO ALMOST BE AS FAST AS FREEBSD
WITHIN USER SPACE!
Maybe if you BSD is dying trolls stopped crapping on here about BSD
dying and instead actually learned a language apt for your OS of choice,
you might actually be able to bring Linux up to "dead status" with the
BSD's.
But wait, it gets worse! While trying to capture packets from a
DoS application, Linux could only manage capture rates of 0.8% in user
space and 9.7% in kernel space, while FreeBSD managed 74.7% in user
space!
"FreeBSD performs much better than Linux"
"it is obvious that a vanilla FreeBSD systems is much more
efficient than a vanilla Linux system when used for packet
capture."
no one actually believes the crap that they post.
they just do it to piss people like you off into posting this garbage.
why is this so hard for you people to understand? you are just feeding them! they will now post more because of you. if you had just shut up, they would stop because they have no point in posting if no one is going to reply.
Just, when i was installing it on my Pentium 200 MHz, 48MiB RAM, it never did end the installation because it was installing at rate 9 KB per second!!!.
Why 9 KiB/s?
I don't know why, but i did a # top and i did see that the CPU was 90% idle and 10% running of cpio, gzip and others programs.
Why 90% cpu-idle for the slower and slower installation?
I don't know why, i believe that FreeBSD's president is hurting us and he wants money with worse and worse code.
open4free