You are currently running Double NAT, which is a very undesireable setup. See if you can get your modem/router to be in bridge mode so the real wan address goes to the pfsense box.

Thanks it worked, I wish you a Merry Christmas

Pffft i probably wont shut up as i mess everything up LOL its not live as i havent received my Intel dual nic, I have been messing around with the settings on the box with nothing but the realtec and an add on 10/100 old intel

Yes, I tried WebGUI, and indeed, when the cover is closed on the CPU load is less than when open. WiFi there is little used, and the load is too small. With him there is no such problem. No, I do not use QoS and Traffic Shaper.

rm is really the only way to do it, or using something else to pass data to rm (like find /somewhere -name "foo" -type f | xargs rm). If the system is blocking on I/O there may not be much you can do. If you can open multiple terminals, running 2+ rm's can sometimes be faster then one alone, but it's still bound by I/O limits on the drive.

This is great stuff. 'pfSense HQ' seems to have an excess of tote bins.  :) Steve

I just think pfsense is ace! Got no real massive complaints about it at all! I just really need to start getting more experimental like the good person that said I needed to add a rc.d script to check on if Snort was not running run it, but using the great service (I think Squid Guard is), I have not had one single bit of malware accidentally run like that annoying system cleaner is it on the web, that instantly causes havok with Windows and many more have never infected my computer. With my easy to configure wifi access point (which in the end was easier than I imagined to setup), I now have a flat thats fully capable of using wifi for my tablet and android phone! LOVE PFSENSE END OF! I decided to turn a feature off on one of the network cards or sorry pfsense's appreciation of it I think it was (so to avoid this) using interrupts, for some reason I don't think's supported on my cards, weird yea? Because the router kept crashing and creating loads of crash dumps ugh annoying, turned that feature back on and now is stable, I was gutted at the time I thought my routers (because it's an ancient machine, I mean going back to 1999ish date when this computer was made, maybe slightly earlier, I don't know) hardware was failing ugh! Oh well fixed that with a bit of power of knowing what I had done prior to these errors happening, I was sure though I had that sorted before, oh well probs didn't if its all working fine for me now, I just wanted to see if I'd speed up the network traffic but to be honest even when it didn't reboot/crash at the times between them, no increase in performance really, I think that's when you have allot of people demanding things off the router and it's just me on my network.

Cheers Steve for the response. Yes you are correct in basically making 2 switches out of 1. I've just finished my cable run job today..well more like cable tidying so am glad I thought of my vlan option. Thanks again.

3rd that! Wicked product!

I prefer virtual! Best setup in my opinion!

I had an email exchange with the developer and I pointed out that while the raw SMP-pf performance stats are indeed very impressive, unless FreeBSD-pf will be aimed at big ISPs seeking to maximize performance, other users of pf could also benefit from features in post-OpenBSD4.7 pf like flexible nat, divert sockets, prio (or dummynet) integration, pflow. One area where pf lags behind Linux's netfilter/iptables (http://www.netfilter.org/), is the multitude of modules that significantly enrich the latter's functionality, and perhaps divert sockets can help close that gap.