StarOS v2.00.3b4-4372 ready for testing

[tony]

Do not apply this update unless you have easy access to the system in question. Always backup your configuration before upgrading.

Read the previous beta release notes before applying this update.

Release notes for v2.00.3b4:
*) zebra 0.94 has been re-introduced into star-os due to problems noted with quagga.
*) setting the admin password had an low chance of not being set correctly, causing inability to log back into the system.
*) development of v3 continues.

Release Caveats:
*) none

As with all betas, please report your success using this release.

All OEM editions are available for download

STARUTIL 1.11
Linux:
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/starutil-linux-1.11.tgz
Windows:
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/starutil-windows-1.11.zip

DESKTOP SYSTEMS
Desktop Edition:
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strr-2.00.3b4-4372.iso
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strr-2.00.3b4-4372.bin
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strr-2.00.3b4-4372.raw

SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS
Soekris & MODO Edition:
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrs-2.00.3b4-4372.iso
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrs-2.00.3b4-4372.bin
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrs-2.00.3b4-4372.raw

WRAP Edition:
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrw-2.00.3b4-4372.iso
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrw-2.00.3b4-4372.bin
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrw-2.00.3b4-4372.raw

Routerboard Edition:
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrb-2.00.3b4-4372.iso
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrb-2.00.3b4-4372.bin
http://www.star-os.com/downloads/oem-vnc/strrb-2.00.3b4-4372.raw

CPE SYSTEMS
CPE Editions for v1.13.4b2 are available.

[rasimoes]

I've just upgraded a 2.00.2 box to this version, and the troughput appear to be half now, using Atheros 5213 cards:

802.11g
54MB Fixed
Routing
19 Miles
All enhanced features enabled

On 2.00.2:

Ping time: ~ 0.80ms
Troughput: ~ 28MBps

On 2.00.3b4:

Ping time: ~1.50ms
Troughput: ~ 14MBps

Any change in the Atheros driver?

Thanks!

[tony]

No change to the Atheros support that would produce lower throughput. I would double check your distance options (to see if it has changed).

Thanks!

[rasimoes]

Tony, no changes on the distance options (UI)...

[tony]

I have not witnessed any performance degradation between the 2.00.2 an 2.00.3 releases, however I do not have a 19mile link to test.

Does your performance change if you increase the distance setting?

The latency change would indicate that the rate is lower than expected. What does the AP show for the client's rate?

[rasimoes]

No changes on troughput by changing distance...

I tried 35 miles, but no changes... Trying 12 miles, i've no connection.

The both sides are showing 54Mbps...

Thanks!

[i20access]

how can i setup per-user wep on this beta? i found another example on the forums and the problem is that i do not see advanced security and access control under wireless|wpci1

[lonnie]

That option is only for Atheros, and I suspect you are using prism2.x based cards. :?:

[i20access]

yes, i am using prism 2.x cards.. does it work on the prism cards in the older versions? the option exsisted there..

[lonnie]

Per user WEP is very new and is only for Atheros. Are you thinking of per user ACL?

[i20access]

http://forums.star-os.com/viewtopic.php?t=2500&highlight=wep << this is what i was trying to get working... is it possible with 2.00.b3? what is the difference between this and per-user wep?

[lonnie]

That example was with an Atheros card. Per user WEP is only available in the Atheros driver. Prism and Orinoco have always had shared key WEP and their firmware will not all support per user.

So, if you are using Atheros based cards, then the example is fine.

[tony]

Non-Atheros clients can still benefite from an AP with Per-user WEP, as they simply have to set their key #1 to match the AP's per-user key.

[i20access]

thanks again for the assistance lonnie.. do you have an example of this tony or do i just set the WEP in under wireless|wpci1|WEP menu ?

[lonnie]

Yes. Use the WEP menu for Prism and Orinoco cards.

[phendry]

Did you guys get to the bottom of rasimoes throughput issue? Has anyone else noticed a similar thing or any other adverse conditions?

On a side note, I don't suppose client AES has been added has it? If not, is it likely to make the next or will we not see it until V3?

[bobbyc]

Rasimoes,
It is likely coincidence.
What you should do is perform speedtests both directions using this version, and then immediately downgrade back to the old release and run the speedtests again and report back.
Bob C

[lonnie]

We are fairly sure it is coincidence since we use that image in key backbone places. Nothing in the driver has been touched. This new beta removed quagga and a password fix.

[rasimoes]

You are right guys! I've downgraded the version and got the same troughput...

[djdodo]

Do you plan add traceroute feature to next (generation) release?

[greg]

I would be interested in a feature where the bandwidth management could automatically change at certain times of the day. What I'd like to do is bump up home users after 5pm m-f and on weekends. Then back to standard settings at 7am. My system usage is high during the normal work day and falls off to nothing in evenings and weekends.

[lonnie]

Just a silly question, so pardon me.

Why would you want to boost your use at a time when it is not being used? It will not add any revenue to you and simply create a support issue. Right now it looks like you can simply relax for your evenings and weekends.

I would keep my settings and promote new business to utilize that spare bandwidth. I would not be simply giving it away.

[funkywizard]

If you could market your settings in such a way that people would appreciate them and choose you over the competition it is a good idea. If most people don't know about it and just see it as "speeds pick up in the evenings" then it probably wont help you other than yourself knowing you are providing the best service you can provide.

I would say a better way to do it might be if you have metered connections, reduce the meter charge or eliminate it during these "off hours". Bandwidth hogs just want the most number of gigs possible and this would encourage them not to use your peak usage while still keeping them happy by being able to use a lot when nobody else is doing so, a win win.

[greg]

I want to use the bandwidth I have available in the most efficient manner. Evenings and weekends are running about 20% of capacity. Weekdays are about 75% of capacity. Maybe I can train the hogs to hold their abuse for the off-hours? I'd just like to turn it loose and let 'er rip during the slower times. If that is too much to program, then so be it. I'll deal with the questions/concerns of my customers. I don't have any wireless competition to speak of, this is my own brainstorming idea. I doubt that I'd publicize or market it.

[lonnie]

greg, I wasn't trying to put you down. I just see that fact that you have all this bandwidth available and you want special code so that you can give it away.

We'll have better bandwidth borrowing and bursting in the coming release. Any time you have excess it will allow faster if you have the guy in the group that gets extra. Consider selling an option to allow bursting so that you generate some extra cash for giving the customer extra.

[jlawrence]

We have a similar thing that we do.
We change the bandwidth management in the evenings. We do this by running a cron job which has starutil upload and activate a different cbq.txt file, then in the morning it uploads the daytime cbq. OK it's a pain to have to manage 2 sets of scripts but it can be done

[djdodo]

cron cbq is my wish too,but better will be add support min.and max.speed aka.in the HTB

[datawork]

:D Can confirm that the newer 530 (HW version:A3 )cards work with build b4.

The harware version of the card can be found below the bar code on the back of the box.

The chipset is indeed Atheros and the card has the RP-SMA connector which is soldered to pins that go though the board. A marked inprovement over the mmcx connetors found on the old 520 cards that were prone to falling off.

Builds supporting card are b3 and b4, all others prior to these do not recognize the card.

[David L. Vrablic]

Does it report a 5212 or a 5213?
How does the performance compare with the older cards?
Do you have any input as yet?
What length path do you have them up in?
What signal readings are you getting?

If it isn't to much trouble.

I am trying to work out a paradox that older style DWL's have a better 9 mile path between two of my boxes than a pair of CM9's.
This should not be. So I am starting over to see if I can find the problem.
Wondering if maybe I should check the performance of a pair of 530's while I am at it and the link is out of production.
It would be an easy card swap to try.

[patos]

greg, I wasn't trying to put you down. I just see that fact that you have all this bandwidth available and you want special code so that you can give it away.

We'll have better bandwidth borrowing and bursting in the coming release. Any time you have excess it will allow faster if you have the guy in the group that gets extra. Consider selling an option to allow bursting so that you generate some extra cash for giving the customer extra.

Hi Lonnie,
Speeking of new cbq rules are we gonna be able also to Shape BW on a tcp port over PPPoe Interface , this is very important to us and we are waiting for it since a long time :oops:
thanks in advance

[Fedde]

pppoe is not working too good, or am i missing something. Just got back from a install with this release, but no luck. PPPoE clients can connect and get's a ip assign, but they can only reach the end of the tunnel, not out on the routed network. Trying to downgrade and see if that helps.

[lonnie]

[quote=lonnie]
Hi Lonnie,
Speeking of new cbq rules are we gonna be able also to Shape BW on a tcp port over PPPoe Interface , this is very important to us and we are waiting for it since a long time :oops:
thanks in advance

patos, why can you not apply the rule to the outbound interface, rather than the inboaud PPPoE interface? It is a bit more typing but with the new pip range you could easily do a whole subnet with two lines of script.

[patos]

Lonnie

Of course i will do it on the Outbound Interface , but my idea was that i need PPPoe users to reach our local web server for example at full speed , but when i do a regular shape pipe on th eoutbound interface it is working but again when reaching PPPoe interface it is shaped at the ppp channel speed.
:roll:

Can i get any examples on the new pip cbq rules ??

Thanks in advance

[lonnie]

http://forums.star-os.com/viewtopic.php?t=2877&highlight=pipe+range

It is pretty cool to have a couple of lines for the entire subnet.

[patos]

Lonnie,

Yes this is Old story , i know them but long time ago not using them cause we are also Radius Based with our Famious Public web interface Management system able to handle 10000 users online , with millions of features: account interim for all , reall time statistics , abuse detector , virus detetor , proxy web detector , banner projection .

The idea is that Radius assigning 64K up/down for users for example and those users are getting banners from our banner system witch is affecting performance every 30 sec cause banners are changing every 30 sec .
The idea is if we can make an tcp shaping on the outbound like u said for our Banner server ip to have like 10 M . I did and it is working but again PPPPoe interface shaping users at 64K back again . All we need is to have Shape by tcp or protocol that PPPoe Interface will allow this to pass directly and not lock down user back to 64K , if user accessing the given tcp shape .

Example i need to have our PPPoE users to have 2M up to our local mail server .

I know very well on IP based this is piece of cake , but in PPPoE things getting complicted . You once said this is not available yet , can u justify pls.

Thanks in advance.