Thanks you. Thats it. :)

@Evald: you can add a rule that match the destination port 1433/tcp Microsoft-SQL-Server 1434/tcp Microsoft-SQL-Monitor 1434/udp Microsoft-SQL-Monitor and give them maximum priority Thanks! Could you explain how to do that in details?  :P

This will change in version 2.0 (estimated release 4Q 2009) Follow it's progress on the pfSense blog http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=208

Thanks - I have submitted the Feature Request at your suggestion. http://cvstrac.pfsense.org/tktview?tn=1838 – Phob

I want to add a link to the quote I pulled from ermal above, because the couple of exchanges that happen after it in the original thread could also be helpful to people looking this stuff up. http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2718.msg48336.html#msg48336

Awesome, thanks Perry.  It seems to flip back and forth every now and then now :) In this case, since I'm not using sticky connections, I need to set up policy-based routing for certain types of connections, right?  Like ssh, https (443), etc?

Thanks for the reply, I already resolve the issue by removing the dns server on pfsense because it is the one using most of the cpu. are there any links for improvements of 1.2.1? :)

@XDJ: @ermal: Is it so hard to search/read othe rposts before posting?! Gee, I never thought of that!  ??? Is it so hard to realize that maybe I did not find anything that (in my limited knowledge of the subject) appeared to apply to my specific situation?  If was very knowledgeable about Traffic Shaping and Queues I wouldn't have asked for help. Makes me miss the warm and fuzzy treatment of the Smoothwall team! How would you feel after reading the same question over and over and over again from people that didnt even try to search if their answer is around? The forum has a search function for a reason ;) (Also i dont think the smoothwall developers interact with their users directly without payment..)

Can i have some feedback from this?

Thanks for your response Ermal In fact, I think about it, and I supose something like an accounting system. I will search for something… Meantime, , how can I restrict the dowload  bandwidth base on IP address? Sorry for ask this, but I really a newbie and don't understand much about traffic shapping... Thanks again!

now the traffic shaper are really mess… accessing the webGUI takes very long time.... so i can't remove the wizard  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(

stechnique well the goal was to approximate this with percentages uasing a percentile seemed easier I only specified the values above because I thought that may be better since the percentage values are giving me such a hard time ( thinking by specifiying it I can make shure the math of the child ques doesnt exceed 100% of the parent ques ) which should fix the errors I get Ermal that is a most helpful explanation hopefully this may help some others as well Thank you muchly

I would love to help with this if anyone is interested.  There's not really any documentation needed any more than what is already here really.  I was using the latest 1.2 stable release, set 4/1 down/up, and set all upperlimit on the download to m1=20% d=12000 (12 seconds) m2=10% Or whatever you'd like for the values, and checkmark *Random Early Detection *Random Early Detection In and Out *Explicit Congestion Notification *This is a parent queue I have a 1.72 P4 cpu, 1 gig ram, 35gb drive, and two 3COM NIC's, one for LAN, other for WAN.  I just wanted something simple, checkmark some things, and implement.  This seems to have done it.  I was missing the Random Early Detection, Random Early Detection In and Out, and Explicit Congestion Notification checkmarks, after that everything is working, and ha been running so far for 10 days, and 3.5 hours.  I connected it to a linksys wrt54g router with DD-WRT with dhcp relay set to point to the pfSense box, which is doing dhcp, and each client can connect and do whatever pretty much, and not have the WAN side go crazy with too much traffic. If you'd like i will find my old post, copy/paste this -> to that, and you can close this one, so no duplicates.