Hey all,

I am wondering what the status of this app is. Is there new documentation on the way? Would like to tweak around but cant really figure out what does what in the settings panel.

Greetings,

silas

So anything that doesn't have a rule goes to the 7th class? After some research I've seen that a lot of VoIP services use a very "P2P'ish" behavior encrypting traffic and using random ports (even Skype :S ), so I think this is going to be really hard... For the other stuff I'm playing with the numbers and I think that the general results are very good. Anyway a little documentation would be great, because I don't know exactly what I'm tunning or how the engine uses the config (what is the "rate-to-quantum" variable?, if I use only classes 1 to 4 would the 4 class have the lowest priority or is still the 7 one?, bandwidth limiting is relative to all the bandwidth available or the reserved for that class?).

Also I think that I have found some sort of minibug. Sometimes when I add a rule the web starts loading but it keeps loading eternally and then my connection dies. I solve this removing the new rule from /etc/clearos/qos.conf and restarting the firewall service. A stupid thing, but can be scary considering that this is a beta software and you may not know where to look :laugh:

Good feedback

Can you identify those services by outgoing destination port? sometimes its hard if they occupy a range...but when you have you can create priority rules for the traffic that's important and time sensitive, secondary rules for lower priority and leave everything else to fall into the 'bulk' lowest class that uses the remaining bandwidth.

Hello everyone! A couple of days ago I returned from holidays to work and updated our gateway to 6.5. Tired of playing World of Warcraft with +700ms of latency I decided to give the new QoS a try... And it's amazing... Last night I was playing with 1100ms, turned off bandwidth manager, launch QoS and restarted firewall... aaaaand latency instantly drops to 40ms!!! (of course I added the IP and ports of the server to the rules before). Thank you so much to Peter and everyone involved in this app! Now I'm configuring other services but I think I need some help. I need to give high priority to VoIP services (Skype, TS3, RaidCall) or some indications to not suffocate this services. In resume I want to have high priority to online gaming (WoW and LoL), VoIP and DNS, medium priority to web surfing and low priority to other "adds" like Whatsapp messages, P2P, etc. Do you know how should this be done?
Thank you all and great job!

Thanks Dirk

There are a couple of things I think that would make ClearOS even better, things like a captive portal (would work well with the HotLan) and an IM server. I know there are forums about installing Coovacilli and Openfire, but it would be nice to have integrated apps for those. A nice feature would be to have the ability to set the HotLan to go through the content filter, without having to set proxy settings. There is a nice post by Dave Loper how to do it using Iptables, but it would be nice to have it in the WebGUI.

Keep up the good work guys.

Thanks Bianca (& Wermer)! We love to help! I love getting help myself. Lots of smart people.

Bianca & Werner wrote:

If I may make a suggestion, how about making Samba Directory available to the community users as a paid app, similar to the active directory connector. That way, the home users who would require it, could buy that.

That's certainly a possibility.

BTW, where could I post feature requests?

The wishlist is a good place to do it, but feel free to start a wishlist discussion in this forum too.

Good point Peter

It is true, the average home user wouldn't want to be bothered by, or understand the different directory driver choices. That is completely understandable. I mentioned that the Zentyal community version does have the full Samba 4 AD implementation, however their business model is obviously different from yours.

If I may make a suggestion, how about making Samba Directory available to the community users as a paid app, similar to the active directory connector. That way, the home users who would require it, could buy that.

I have to mention, Clearos probably has some of the best community forum support out there, compared to other distros.

BTW, where could I post feature requests?

Bianca & Werner wrote:

I know this might be a bit off topic, but I am very disappointed to see that SAMBA 4 will only make into ClearOS Community as a file server option (maybe limited directory options) and not as the full Active Directory implementation. There are other distros out there that include the full implementation, even in the free versions (ie Zentyal). I would really like to know what the developers stand point is on that.

Developers don't make product & pricing decisions, so our standpoint is not particularly important. hmy: Do we have some input? Sure, but that's about it. From a technical/developer standpoint, tuning the Community Edition for home environments makes it a lot easier to manage usability. Adding "Active Directory" in a home environment is atypical, so I certainly understand why it would be considered a business-only feature in the eyes of a product manager.

For example, the whole "pick an LDAP solution" step is not necessary in the Community Edition (screenshot). There's no cryptic LDAP language, there's no pause to figure out what LDAP is best, and there's no complexity with the Samba version installed. Instead, a home user just sees a web interface to add "users" and "groups". Simple and easy. The fact that LDAP is running under the hood is neither evident nor particularly important.

That's just my opinion though...

I know this might be a bit off topic, but I am very disappointed to see that SAMBA 4 will only make into ClearOS Community as a file server option (maybe limited directory options) and not as the full Active Directory implementation. There are other distros out there that include the full implementation, even in the free versions (ie Zentyal). I would really like to know what the developers stand point is on that.

I would also say option #3. BTW what would the paid for added value be?

I think your team does a great job and I understand it needs to be profitable for the whole thing to survive long term.

I agree with others that Free for Professional and Paid for Community seems to be the most sensible.

I think the fee can be reasonable but once off e.g. $50. Then people who want it can pay for the development.

Note: If people are going to pay for it you need to have good documentation so people understand the app, how to get the best results out of it etc. My understanding is http://www.clearcenter.com/support/documentation/user_guide/qos is the current level of documentation for the paid 'professional' QOS.

I use ClearOS 5.2 at home for its network gateway functions. i.e. Firewall, bandwith managment for VoIP and to slow down excessive use by my teenagers, and the web proxy cache to save ISP bandwidth, print server.

So my desire to use ClearOS is driven by a subset of the total package... and every 6 months or so I come here to check the lay of the land and come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that 6.x doesnt seem to offer anything different to what I have running in 5.2.

I thought QoS was the pivot point for that decision to upgade and so I keep coming back (maybe this time!) and to date its been "a bridge too far for the QoS development and (for me) very difficult to track progress on. I search the forums to find the QoS stuff is still "in progress"... nearly there...in the next version... or the next... or XXX has made it his/her highest priority but the timeline for delivery is still unknown.. and now may not be available once finished.

My opinion is that QoS for VoIP is as fundamental and ubiquitous as firewalls and bandwidth management now so it would seem out of place to have all the free networking apps and then QoS as pro only or paid for. Its just not that special... though I really want it so perhaps it is! :blink:

Michael Proper wrote:

Darren,

We are still in the pre 2014 planning phase regarding the proposed direction of future versions of ClearOS. And yes the price point will be low and/or free (always focused on true value exchange). Watch other forum posts if you would like to provide your roadmap feedback.

PS. All versions of ClearOS will not "halt" if one desires to not continue a service subscription.

Thank you for your QoS feedback, it's appreciated!

M~

Fine and good, I suppose. However, I don't have time to peruse all the forum topics looking for posts about "roadmap feedback". Can you please let us know where updated information will be made available on this topic? The Roadmap Page is neither detailed nor current.

Personally, I'm not really invested in future versions, I still just want to know about QoS availability, and finally find out if ClearOS fits my needs. Are you saying that we are looking at 2014 at the earliest before we see QoS on a home / community focused version of ClearOS? Thanks.

Darren Best

Darren,

We are still in the pre 2014 planning phase regarding the proposed direction of future versions of ClearOS. And yes the price point will be low and/or free (always focused on true value exchange). Watch other forum posts if you would like to provide your roadmap feedback.

PS. All versions of ClearOS will not "halt" if one desires to not continue a service subscription.

Thank you for your QoS feedback, it's appreciated!

M~

Michael Proper wrote:

Plan on it being available for sure. Would you run ClearOS Home at home if QoS were available for free knowing SAMBA type features were not made available in the ClearOS Home version?

Until today, I had not even heard of "ClearOS Home." I googled it and found some forum discussions about the possibility of a new version of the distro, and this wishlist that you asked for 3 years ago.

Please elaborate on what this is. Is it officially announced anywhere, or still just an idea? If it is going to happen, is it to be: 1) free, or 2) subscription like Professional (only presumably cheaper)? How will it be different from Community?

FYI, I will *not* pay a subscription for a home implementation of a router, particularly one based on Free/open software. I don't mind paying *one time* for a module to extend its capability (like, for instance, a QoS app), but I will not go down the road of paying recurring fees for software to run on equipment I own. There are plenty of free alternatives. (I can just see it: my home network halts because I forgot to update the expiry date for the credit card on my ClearOS subscription. Right, not gonna happen.) So, unless "ClearOS Home" is free like Community, no I will not run it.

Also, what versions of ClearOS did you recommend to the "local business"?

At my recommendation, last year my church started using ClearOS 6.3 Community. Also, in 2011 I installed a ClearOS 5.2 server in an electrical contractor's office, with subscriptions to backup and anti-malware. I have not upgraded him because he is using the old mail services and they are working fine for him (no desire to move to Zarafa).

Have it available in Home & Community is my vote.

QoS is useful for residential & small business and the feature is widely available in other very affordable packages. It doesn't seem like a natural differentiator between residential & business like Samba-based AD features.

Darren Best wrote:

DaveBurkholder wrote:

#1 or #2 seem the most straightforward.

Whatever the option Clear finally chooses, the one situation I want most to avoid is an ever increasing list of basic features that are not available *at all* on the Community Edition.

This!

Because quite simply put, if it's not available in Community, most people won't "try it out" (I know I can't pay for "Professional" at home), and if that happens, there soon won't *be* a community to try Community Edition.

I know I'm not a developer, but I am in a position to recommend solutions. I have installed ClearOS twice to local businesses (and sold one on a subscription), but not recently. Frankly, if *I* am not able to play around with all the most critical features, I'm not going to use it personally (I'll find another solution). And then I'm not going to sell anyone else on it. It's not malicious, it's just human nature.

So, back to Michael's question, it should be #2 or #3. QoS *needs* to be free in Professional, no question (this is a *basic* requirement that ClearOS is only now getting). As far as Community goes, like I said, I'd be willing to part with $10-20, and of course free is better, just make it available!

Darren,

Plan on it being available for sure. Would you run ClearOS Home at home if QoS were available for free knowing SAMBA type features were not made available in the ClearOS Home version?

Also, what versions of ClearOS did you recommend to the "local business"?

Thank you for your feedback as it matters!

While ClearOS Home Edition doesn't sound like a bad idea, please don't do away with the Community Edition since this is where a lot of testing and development comes from. It's a very nice all-around package.

Dirk Albring wrote:

I vote option 3 Michael! Of course, if it takes money to develop it, I'd be willing to pay a small fee.

Dirk, Sounds like we are on the same page. Will continue driving in this direction.

DaveBurkholder wrote:

#1 or #2 seem the most straightforward.

Whatever the option Clear finally chooses, the one situation I want most to avoid is an ever increasing list of basic features that are not available *at all* on the Community Edition.

Dave,

Agree with you and intend upon seeing QoS included in a free edition (question is which one ClearOS Community or ClearOS Home*).

*We are working on plans of a ClearOS Home and seeking to figure-out where this should fit as the ClearOS Home edition should have QoS and should not need some of the SAMBA type Apps/Services, etc. Thus, the "Scenario" question as to justify where ClearOS Home differentiation line between ClearOS Community and ClearOS Home is drawn.

Either-way, plan to get QoS for free, the question is where and how to ensure value exchange is realized and justified.

Looking forward to putting a definitive resolution to this topic ASAP!

Dirk, Sounds like we are on the same page. Will continue driving in this direction.

DaveBurkholder wrote:

#1 or #2 seem the most straightforward.

Whatever the option Clear finally chooses, the one situation I want most to avoid is an ever increasing list of basic features that are not available *at all* on the Community Edition.

This!

Because quite simply put, if it's not available in Community, most people won't "try it out" (I know I can't pay for "Professional" at home), and if that happens, there soon won't *be* a community to try Community Edition.

I know I'm not a developer, but I am in a position to recommend solutions. I have installed ClearOS twice to local businesses (and sold one on a subscription), but not recently. Frankly, if *I* am not able to play around with all the most critical features, I'm not going to use it personally (I'll find another solution). And then I'm not going to sell anyone else on it. It's not malicious, it's just human nature.

So, back to Michael's question, it should be #2 or #3. QoS *needs* to be free in Professional, no question (this is a *basic* requirement that ClearOS is only now getting). As far as Community goes, like I said, I'd be willing to part with $10-20, and of course free is better, just make it available!

Ooo, yeah. Fail2ban sounds like it would be another good option!

#1 or #2 seem the most straightforward.

Whatever the option Clear finally chooses, the one situation I want most to avoid is an ever increasing list of basic features that are not available *at all* on the Community Edition.

I vote option 3 Michael! Of course, if it takes money to develop it, I'd be willing to pay a small fee.

Hello Folks,

Glad to see QoS hit ClearOS!

Hearing the appeals and knowing a development ROI needs to be achieved which of the following scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario 1
Paid in ClearOS Community
Paid in ClearOS Professional

Scenario 2
Paid in ClearOS Community
Free in ClearOS Professional

Scenario 3
Free in ClearOS Community
Free in ClearOS Professional
Paid by Adding Value*

*Awareness (ClearOS Invites) and/or Support (ClearFoundation Forum Posts)

+1
Dirk Albring wrote:

I'd be willing to pay a small fee for it, similar to the Zarafa-Community marketplace fee.

I'd be willing to pay a small fee for it, similar to the Zarafa-Community marketplace fee.

So... Tim and Peter both seem to agree that including QoS in Community makes sense, right? Putting a ClearOS box behind a cheap Linksys router running Tomato seems somewhat counter-intuitive, but right now that's what's on my plate because I need QoS!

Peter, you know that this is a Professional-only app, but so far yours is the *only* statement to that effect that I've seen posted anywhere. Is there an updated roadmap anywhere that says what's what on the next release? Is there any way to propose that QoS is necessary for Community? Can anyone be appealed to so that QoS be made, at minimum, into a paid app (a la Zarafa)? Bueller? Bueller?

(Sorry, don't mean to be cranky.)

Tim Burgess wrote:

... especially since QOS features in many cheap routers

Couldn't agree more.

Hi Dirk, it won't break your firewall, there was a couple of bug fixes to pull in the QOS variables from the config files

EDIT: Also disappointed that this wont feature in the community version?....maximising the available bandwidth would seem to be an important part of all ClearOS installs, especially since QOS features in many cheap routers

Is it going to break my existing firewall setup if I install app-firewall-core as a needed dependency to the qos app? I was under the impression this was already installed as part of the core installation of ClearOS6.4.

Hopefully someone from the ClearCenter product team will respond...

Peter Baldwin wrote:

Yes, the QoS app is complete, but it will be a Professional only app (included in Pro). Sorry.

Really, this won't be available even as a paid app for the Community edition?

If so, this is *very* disappointing news. If you look back in this thread, QoS is the issue that I (and others) specifically need solved on our home networks. I've muddled through this far with the anticipation that QoS was supposed to be implemented soon. Now, I have to find another solution after all? When was this decided?

Yes, the QoS app is complete, but it will be a Professional only app (included in Pro). Sorry.

Is the QoS App complete and will it be included in 6.5 community?

I'm still running v5.2 as QoS is the one new feature I've been patiently waiting for.

Tim,

Info as requeted:

[root@fw2 log]# rpm -q app-qos-core
app-qos-core-1.4.1-1.v6.noarch

The contents of my /etc/clearos/qos.conf minus the comments and blank lines:

QOS_ENABLE="off"
QOS_UPSTREAM="eth2:1270"
QOS_DOWNSTREAM="eth2:14000"
QOS_ENGINE="/usr/clearos/apps/qos/deploy/libqos.lua"
QOS_PRIOMARK4="\
"
QOS_PRIOMARK6="\
"
QOS_PRIOMARK_CUSTOM="\
"

Pasting the above has probably revealed my issue; I had replaced my NIC that interfaces with my ISP and ClearOS designated it as eth3 upon reboot. The config file still references eth2. I'll switch that to eth3 and restart. I bet it works.

Incidentally, when I first figured out what was going on I ran yum --enablerepo=clearos-test update app-qos-core and there was a new version with app-firewall-core (IIRC) from clearos-test as a dependency. I can no longer find that update. Has it been pulled?

[root@fw2 log]# yum --enablerepo=clearos-test update app-qos-core
Loaded plugins: clearcenter-marketplace, fastestmirror
ClearCenter Marketplace: fetching repositories...
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* clearos: mirror.1000mbps.com
* clearos-addons: mirror.1000mbps.com
* clearos-extras: mirror.1000mbps.com
* clearos-test: mirror.1000mbps.com
* clearos-updates: mirror.1000mbps.com
* private-clearcenter-dyndns: download3.clearsdn.com:80
Setting up Update Process
No Packages marked for Update

Thanks,

Derek

Can you post the output of 'rpm -q app-qos-core'? and also check the contents of /etc/clearos/qos.conf?

You will need the latest firewall version to pick up some very minor bugfixes in the QOS variables, so I would suggest you update it

I have just run into the same issue as Peter.

Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Using gateway mode
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Loading kernel modules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Loading kernel modules for NAT
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Setting default policy to DROP
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Defining custom chains
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running blocked external rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running custom rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running common rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running incoming denied rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running user-defined incoming rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Allowing incoming tcp port/range 993
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Allowing incoming tcp port/range 81
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running default incoming allowed rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running user-defined port forward rules
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running external QoS bandwidth manager
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Error: /usr/clearos/apps/qos/deploy/libqos.lua:150: attempt to concatenate field '?' (a nil value)
Oct 6 20:03:09 fw2 firewall: Running firewall panic mode...

I've been running qos without any issue since late February, and all of a sudden this happens. I had to disable qos in order for everybody to have internet access.

Is there any update on the QoS development? I ran 'yum --enablerepo=clearos-test update app-qos-core' and it shows an updated version is available, but it has app-firewall-core as a dependency, and running a test version of firewall scares me a little.

Thanks,

Dirk