Is there an upper limit to PF's tables?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> > So loading all entries in to empty table works fine, but reloading 
> > didn't work.
> Sorry. Looks like I might be coming to the party a little late. But I'm
> currently running a 9.3 box that runs as a IP (service) filter for much
> of a network. While I've patched the box well enough to keep it safe to
> continue running. I am reluctant to up(grade|date) it to 11, or CURRENT,
> based on some of the information related to topics like this thread.
> Currently, the 9.3 box maintains some 18 million entries *just* within
> the SPAM related table. The other tables contain no less that 1 million.

> As it stands I have *no* trouble loading pf(4) with all of the tables
> totaling some 20+ million entries, *even* when the BOX is working with
> as little 4Gb ram.
> Has something in pf(4) changed, since 9.3 that would now prevent me
> from continuing to use my current setup, and tables?

Well, if you plan to upgrade, I'd suggest you do some tests,
like dumping those tables and loading them on a new box.

At all our installations we did use PF in 9.x times and
had no problems to move to 11.x.

-- 
pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                    2 years to go !