I wish I knew more about Digg.com.  I would be able to get more Diggs if I did,  I made some errors in my submission due to my inexperience with digg.  I thought I would be able to edit my submission much like a forum.  No such luck.  I should have pointed the Digg post to a webpage or pfsense.com.

So if this Digg entry does not really go anywhere I plan on redoing and resubmitting.  We need to get about 50-55 diggs in the first 24 hours to help the Entry go to the upcoming section first page (Or so I hear).  I assume out of the 5k or so registered users at the forums we ought to be able to get a big chunk of that number.  If we have any way of rallying the registered digg users from the forums that would be very helpful toward getting some more exposure for the project.

hi!!  :D

thanks for reply…

@cmb:

It looks like you're trying to fsck a mounted partition on a running system?

**No, i run fsck -y in single mode
I download the iso image in tree times and install this iso in tree pc´s and say this error in the tree pc´s..

excuse my english.. thanks…**.

If it's not there it has been removed.
Search the forum and you will find out.

Selling a self made CD for $1 should be fine, IMHO.
That's about the cost and stuff. You don't get rich with that and it promotes pfSense.

Nevermind…it appears to have been a routing issue.  Thanks.

If your system wasn't shut down cleanly, fsck -y automatically runs at next boot. If you get thrown to a prompt where you have to manually run it (though I don't think that's even possible), running fsck -y manually will work.

I'm confused on exactly what you're seeing.

If you're to a point where fsck -y isn't fixing the file system problems, you have some serious issues that will probably require a reinstall.

microsoft has a section regarding known issues concerning KB939653.  it basically says to uninstall and reinstall your security software. i uninstalled McAfree Internet Security and my browser worked perfectly. i then reinstalled and everything was fine as well.  it has to do with changed file signatures after doing the update.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942818/

if uninstalling the update improved performance i probably wouldn't have gone any further, but my browser performance did not improve even after uninstalling.

Good grief! Wow, impressive. Considering those are pre-1.0 versions riddled with bugs (obviously not for the things you're using), that's quite impressive.  Cool to see.  I upgrade all mine way too much to come anywhere close to that.

The icons are GPL.  No thanks.

http://simoncpu.multiply.com/journal/item/1/pfSense_IPv6

Thanks mate, that was exactly what I was looking for. Have a great day :).

I would think of a GUI tool that modifies config.xml and restores it to the box.
Then there would be the demand to configure and control multiple devices all over the place and you end up with a full blown management system.

Either you misinterpret your customer's demand (a windows based GUI) or you diplomatically want to start a big project here    ;)

BTW: I cannot share your opinion on the look & feel.

No I didn't know that.  Thanks for telling me, thats pretty important.

http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/board,43.0.html

@rafaelsantos:

sounds great tacfit… but can i obtain good pfsense performance using a box with VIA Eden 1GHz processor, PC133 512MB SoDIMM and 1gb Compact Flash???
think in a situation with throughput of a 200 hosts in lan, incoming external connection and 2 vpn´s tunneling with about 30 hosts in each one...
thanks

As cmd says, more details needed. First off, I don't know how the Eden compares with a Pentium III based Xeon, but if they're comparable, and those users are doing "typical" surfing, e-mail, downloading general stuff, I would say your performance will be fine.

BUT… again, this is a total guess on my part. I would say the first bottleneck you're going to run into is memory... and depending on the encryption used for your VPNs, CPU speed. Also, if you've got users download lots of torrents and other stuff like that, that'll throw things off. If this was for an office where you would restrict the types of traffic allowed, I think you wouldn't be far off the mark.

I've been VERY impressed with pfSense's performance, but bare in mind I'm running it on a full sized server. It sounds like you're using a smaller device, which may be just fine... but I can only speak from my own experience :)

On something like that you're probably restricted to DD-WRT, OpenWRT etc.

For a list of hardware pfSense supports, see the hardware page.

Forum search yields http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,1141.0.html