Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,498

    Default

    What do you care? Promiscious mode is set on the interface by the software in the VM when needed. You're simply configuring the vSwitch to ALLOW it. Besides, there's nothing else on the vSwitch to abuse it.

    Unless you're afraid someone is going to hack into VMWare and install something? I submit at that point you have larger problems.

    Just set the vSwitch to only have 2 ports.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  2. #12
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmorris View Post
    It can be.
    Some people have great success virtualizing untangle, some even specifically with pfsense and untangle.
    Others run into intermittent and performance or bizarre issues.

    I wish I could say I knew why some people fall into one camp vs the other.
    so far I am thinking I will be a member of the succussful UT virtualizers camp!

    Thanks in much part to the comments received in this thread!

    Here is a suggestion, could there be a separate forum topic for "UT Virtualization" as it wil become more and more prevalent and it is very doable it would help people to find all the vm threads easier to assist with a successful implementation?
    Last edited by photonman; 10-13-2012 at 07:25 PM.
    M.I.B. likes this.

  3. #13
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75

    Default

    VMXNET 3 Drivers

    I noticed the ova template I used has E1000 drivers for the Intel nic emulation and my experience with VMWare was that the VMXNET 2 or 3 drivers were the preferred for best performance.

    So I am going to switch out my NICS in UT to the VMXNET3.

    Is there a reason I should stay with the E1000?

    When I added the VMXNET3 nics to the my UT VM, the UT network interfaces page showed that new nics were detected and they seem to be added to the interface list with no problem.

  4. #14
    Untangle Ninja
    WebFooL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sweden (Eskilstuna)
    Posts
    5,049

    Default

    photonman,

    I will switch them to VMXNET3 now when i generate them on ESXi 5.1 and with hardware 9.

    There are no known problems with VMXNET3 but i preferd E1000 with older ESX versions.
    And as I am createing the OVA files it became E1000.

  5. #15
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebFooL View Post
    photonman,

    I will switch them to VMXNET3 now when i generate them on ESXi 5.1 and with hardware 9.

    There are no known problems with VMXNET3 but i preferd E1000 with older ESX versions.
    And as I am createing the OVA files it became E1000.
    Cool,

    and thanks by the way, for that ova template. It worked perfect and the vmtools updated with no problem.

  6. #16
    Untangle Ninja
    WebFooL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sweden (Eskilstuna)
    Posts
    5,049

    Default

    Np..

    I just got my ESXi 5.1 Env so the news version of OVA's will have a higher tool version and virtual hardware version.

  7. #17
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebFooL View Post
    Np..

    I just got my ESXi 5.1 Env so the news version of OVA's will have a higher tool version and virtual hardware version.
    in your vmware experience, is there a noticable difference in the UT performance with the E1000 vs. VMXNET drivers?

  8. #18
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,498

    Default

    I wouldn't recommend swapping out to the VMXNET drivers until after Untangle does the kernel migration to the new Debian. If you do some digging, you'll find there are still some issues with VMXNET and Debian 5. Also, the e1000 drivers are built into every linux kernel under the sun. I'm not sure how the VMXNET still will fly with the Debian 6 conversion. The drivers are included and compiled as a part of the tools installation. So it's possible the drivers will fail to function post that specific upgrade. However, Debian 6 has built in support for VMXNET, so will it just pickup where it left off?

    I'd test it, but I'm a Citrix shop now. VMWare is great, but they want too much money and Citrix Desktop Server is just too darn awesome.

    Performance wise, you're looking at saving considerable RAM on the hypervisor to use VMXNET vs e1000 emulation.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  9. #19
    Untangle Ninja
    WebFooL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sweden (Eskilstuna)
    Posts
    5,049

    Default

    In my setups with Untangle 8 or 7.4 cant remember when i did the tests but I had allot more success with E1000.

    When UT gets Debian 6 (Hopefully in the next rls) i will be testing VMXNET 3.

  10. #20
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,498

    Default

    I agree, Debian 6 + VMXNET 3 should work wonderfully.

    Of course e1000 will work just as well too.

    Also, Debian 6 might let me make xva's for Xenserver support like you do for VMWare. I'll also be looking at Hyper-V.

    Untangle gets me that new kernel, Nexgen is going to attempt to blow the top off this. It's about time we moved Untangle out of the niche and into the enterprise.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2