Okay, I think I'm cool now.  Updated to snap from August 12th.  I do think it's kinda weird that the floating rule the wizard created didn't seem to work - I had to delete it, and create one for the LAN for the voip host, then edit the existing rule for the RTP ports on the WAN to add qVoip.  Oh well…

Ye, it looks familiar to how the wizard creates queues. But nice explained though! How I see it, the Queues are actually the ones creating bandwidth limits for ip adresses, aliases, interfaces, whatever… No need for LIMITERs as I see it. Or what? I have tried with limiters the past few days, but cant seem to make them work as intended :( Rafter

in opt2 interface which is renamed, work as lan. didn't try limiter yet

You should have different subnets for each Vlans, yes? If so, simply set 3 queues under the traffic shaper in order of priority and use PRIQ (note, this is only applicable to pfSense 2.0). Assign all traffic to or from each Vlan (by specifying the source or destination subnet) into the individual queues using the Vlan's interface tab (for outbound) and the floating tab (for inbound). eg.  Setup 3 queues (qVLan1, qVlan2, qVlan3 with priorities of 3, 2, 1 respectively).  Set qVlan3 queue to be the default queue since this is the lowest priority queue anyway. Set the default rule under Vlan1 tab to pipe all traffic to qVlan1 queue; The protocol/ destination will be any and the source address will be the subnet of Vlan1.  Go to floating and set the same except that the Protocol/ Source will be any and the destination will be Vlan1's subnet.  Also, ensure that the interface is set to WAN (this will accomodate for inter-vlan routing at higher speeds with other rules) Do the same for Vlan2 and Vlan3.

Thanks that makes sense.  Seems to be like you said, Josh, without the queues on different interfaces somehow communicating with each other, they can't shape properly if given access to sort of "overlapping" bandwidth.  I might have to look into this a bit more :)  I do find it really interesting and confusing trying to understand exactly how TCP works in this kind of situation.  I think probably each network will end up getting bandwidth proportional to how many connections it has, and no way to specify "network 1 limit bw to .3k only if other networks are using 1.2k" I like the idea of using 5 interfaces and pluging one into the other, should be able to do that with a little VLAN switch… which then makes me wonder if you couldn't do that somehow within pfSense using vlans and bridges somehow... have to look into this now...

Very informative thank you. It makes sense that An adverse effect of shaping is increased data on the ISP's side. Because delayed data gets re transmitted because it thinks it's "in error". Where as is has a long response or timeout. It's good information for others to concider. You may be limiting you internet usage going out but hitting your WAN, it's increased because of the drop retransmit.

@roja: i've used multilan setup succesfully now for three weeks. actually having 3 different lans. 1 lan is priq(mine) 2 others are set hsfc(others) and it works fine

Did you update or something?!? Please give more info

;D not Sure what you mean by the last line but if you're main Focus is to limit youtube, you first need to "google" youtube's ip ranges and then create a rule and place data from those sites (source) in to a low priority queue using the firewall rules. Destination will be "any". **Note you may have to create a few rules to get a majority of the Youtube servers. Also you can have wider mask on the source address. The other way was to use squid and reg ex the hell out of the http data, but i personnely I don't find that works as well. For flash from other sites the Proxy method may have to be the way you go. My 2 cents  ;D

Hope fully some one replied but i am going to Throw my 2 cents in; I too was running 1.2.3 and When 2.0 came out i upgrade and was horrified by how it did not work. Features were nice but if they did not work, I am loking at you PPPOE creating multiple adapters .. Now i have bit the bullet and upgraded to 2.0 RC3 and WOW what a difference. It's way better than 1.2.3 and many of the post here with questions it starts to be noticeable who has 1.2.3 and who has 2.0 RC3 by the questions they ask. 2.0 really makes Traffic shaping easier with Layer 7 and with parent vs child queues setup. And Yes Create a back of your 1.2.3 and then upgrade. The best tip i had was remove your packages before upgrading. Then after upgrading reapply your packages all config's will remain. Then create a new backup of your 2.0 (different backup files). my  2 cents

@neewbie: check the default queue. bandwidh in% curve in kb. such as the inverted image above. the snapshots. pfSense-Full-Update-2.0-RC3-i386-20110728-2121.tgz   been running normally. you mean i should check Default Queue in qP2P ?

@ermal: Check latest snapshots. Cool, I'm running Sunday July 24th snapshot, will update.

videostream limit by using the L7 can too. with queue can too. if using L7, flash protocol  limiter structure behvior limiternya name. and create a rule floating for port 1935 with L 7.

Well it took a while but I got it. I think I was getting mixed up, so, I put all the settings in a spread sheet. So, now netflix from my Wii is now uninterrupted, although it is a little slow on the initial load but I'm not concerned with waiting an extra 10-15 seconds until the shaper regulates itself.

Actually, I am realizing that this doesn't work quite the way it seemed to, it's a bit more complicated.  Take my example above: upperlimit m1=100%, d=5min, m2=20%… well, the 5 min seems to depend on how much of the 100% the user is actually getting, it will be longer than 5 min if the user is only able to use say, 50% of the bandwidth because he is sharing with another user, not really understanding exactly how the timer works in fact.  Maybe someone will explain it but seems like very few people really understand hfsc queues.  Anyway, in this scenario, the users may never get throttled when there are lots of users "fighting" over the available bandwidth, instead they get throttled when no one is using it, which is the opposite of what I would hope for.  Looks like back to studying and experimenting for me, rather than posting in the forum!