It is not possible to dynamically and equal share the bandwidth. This has been asked many times and there is even a faq for it on faq.pfsense.com.

Upgrade to latest RC2 with patches and rerun the shaper wizard. We changed some weightings between the queues.

You need to have squid on a different server, you can not do this with squid on the pfsense box.

Thanks, I changed it. Will wrap work at all?

I would try raising the ack bandwidth to 25% on both ack queues first.

Drop port 6889, will help cap some of the torrent users….at least from going off the lan....also, using another interface would work to bypass the filters so you could use it all at night:P

LAN/WAN will work as these interfaces are not bridged to each other.

I'm still not able to acheive the results I'm looking for. I think the problem is not about the amount of bandwidth being used but rather the priority or order in which packets get processed and sent out. I want to have my UDP game packets have absolute priority over everything else regardless of the packet size or number of packet per second. As any online gamer knows, it is low latency that needs to take place for a good gaming experience. So, are there some settings changes I could make that will achieve this? The "model" or lets say level of performance I am trying to copy is that of my D-Link DGL 4100. It's Gamefuel technology works great for this purpose. The problem with it is that the router does not have much ram and the state table is too small so it's gets overwhelmed even doing a server search from Counter Strike. There are over 40000 servers to ping and it can't handle it. Especially when I am running a server myself and sending ping responces to everyone else searching for a server. So I'm using a PFSense with RC2, 1ghz Athlon, 256mb ram. Thanks.

Hi all, may I help me to solve this problem? Regards, Johnnguyen

See http://wiki.pfsense.com/wikka.php?wakka=HFSCBandwidthShapingNotes for a tom&jerry example  ;D Also http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,1384.0.html might be interesting

This night I test and then I tell you. THANKS

sullrich, many thanks for your reply. I will have to change NICs.

Thank you kindly, No voipers yet, maybe in the future I can dedicate a pipe to such critical services. For now I think I will try and hope I do not fail miserably.

Please upgrade to http://pfsense.com/~sullrich/RELENG_1_SNAPSHOT-07-12-2006/

I guess you will only see traffic in the voip queues at the end the traffic enters the tunnel. If you have set it up at both ends it might work as expected as the other end already sorted the packages. Note the might. You should assign higher priority for IPSEC traffic too at both ends btw. I still have to set this up in a real live environment to test out myself. We are evaluating a voipsetup soon at the office with 3 WANs from 3 different ISPs and VPNs. Additional to this there will be 3 other locations joining. I'll do some tests with this scenario.

Traffic shaping does not work with bridging currently.

No.  The system is working as designed.  We do not support editing of queues, we only support the default generated traffic shaper configuration.

Unfortunately creating a rules/queues for every single client is the only way it can be done right now with pfSenses shaper if you want to shape per IP. Concerning the wireless special settings I would do some throughput tests to know what limits you should set for the root queues and maybe be a bit conservative substracting a bunch of kbit/s from what you get to end up with good quality. The connection limit can be done with the advanced options of firewall rules. Just edit a rule and you find them in the middle of the page.