just an update, I did downgrade to R2 and it worked, today I upgraded to 2.0 release to see if it was fixed and all good. I never once changed my policy the R3 was failing … but since the release is out now I guess we consider this done! happy holiday's guys.

Thanks I'll try that setup.

Are you actually getting more than 2mbps?

Is the graph going off the chart?

Yeah I did play with that today, oh well now I know.

We don't have a way to do that at the moment, but if you open a support ticket at https://portal.pfsense.org/ and ask we can see what it might take.

You could grab them automatically from the box, that's covered on the doc wiki ( http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Remote_Config_Backup )

@luke240778:

perfect. I'm only going to need somewhere between 5000 and 7000 anyways.

In theory you then can use a /19 Netmask. This is enough for 8.192 Users.

192.168.0.0 - 192.168.31.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.32.0 - 192.168.63.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.64.0 - 192.168.95.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.96.0 - 192.168.127.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.128.0 - 192.168.159.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.160.0 - 192.168.191.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.192.0 - 192.168.223.255    8.192 IPs
192.168.224.0 - 192.168.255.255    8.192 IPs

@sathia:

Hello, I noticed today that the MBUF usage has hit its limit.
Apparently the site I'm running under pfsense is having some troubles too, I'd like to know if it would be safe to just

I have expirienced problem like this one when I have used bridge betwen physical net interface and VLAN interface.
When MBUF was full, system failed to route any packet and only restart was helpfull.

Now, I have changed that to bridge betwen two physical interfaces (WAN and DMZ) and under same load, which is substantial one,
I don't have any problems any more.

pfSense version is 1.2.3, hardware is Intel server MB with quad core Xeon and 2 port integrated ETH + one add-on dual port intel gigabit ETH + 2 GB RAM.

Br

Sasa

@ermal:

Can i ask why you are running those many openvpn instances?

That's not an unheard of configuration, and is desirable in some circumstances. Though I've never seen it go nuts like that. Some locking or something gone awry there because of some package or something? I have done installs with 400+ server instances before without any trouble.

@luke240778:

i am getting so many of them complaining about speed,

If I recall correctly, you have stated elsewhere that bandwidth is expensive for you. Therefore I suspect that when customers complain about speed they might not be complaining about speed from your ISP but speed from somewhere far upstream of you (e.g. "streaming videos from Utube are very jerky".) The first problem can probably be solved relatively easily and cheaply. The second problem will be far more challenging UNLESS the issue is solely speed from the ISP.

I don't recall if you have many pfSense wireless APs. If so, the Status -> Wireless page may be of interest since it reports the channel speed to associated clients. I suspect at least some other wireless APs will have similar reporting capability.

@luke240778:

i dont know how to insert a code box sorry.. so you will understand what i mean anyways.

When composing a post click on the icon containing "#" immediately above emoticons immediately above the editing box. This will insert "code" tags in the editing box at the current cursor position. Then type the contents of the code box between the tags. Alternatively, add the contents of the code box to the text, select it, then click the icon containing "#" and the code tags will be added around the selected text. A bit of experimentation using the preview button below the editing box will give you idea. The icons above the editing box have "mouseover" hints: if you keep the mouse pointer on them for a little while they will display, in white text on a black background, hints of what they do.

Glad you got it working!  ;D

Just finished reading and testing dhcrelay…. it seems there is only one target possible.

It would seem the tabs are for enabling on a per interface basis. The server field is a general field it seems.

Sorry to have bothered you guys... should have read before I ask...

Peter

I don't see the PPPoE server as an interface.

PPPoE under Interfaces->Lan only appears to be for dialing and outgoing PPPoE connection and using that as an interface on the lan. I want to set the service name for pfSense's internal PPPoE server so that client discovery uses service name to find it and connect to it. Otherwise clients will randomly dial whichever PPPoE server on the LAN responds first.

@harry66:

Something seems to be special with the Tenda device as it seems to perform extraordinarily good on pfsense.

Lucky choice on my part! It seems sometimes its possible to get more than what you pay for.

@harry66:

In addition to these experiments I decided to attach another USB wifi nic to the pfsense box to be able to compare my experiences against another chipset: It is an Alfa AWUS036H. Although all of the device I refer to show good performance under other OSes the Alfa is an exceptional player. As well with pfsense it behaves in more or less the same way you describe it for your Tenda stick.

What other OSes did you try? Linux?

@harry66:

What I can say directly by comparing scan results is, that the Alfa constantly shows WLANs in reach where the Edimax and the Linksys always only show a subset. On top this subset is always different with every scan run.

You mean on pfSense? Or do you get the varying scan results on other OSes as well?

@harry66:

I have no idea how we could further investigate.

Perhaps contact support for the other suppliers and ask them to account for the results. Maybe they have their own firmware that needs their own driver tweaks to get best results.

Thanks for the informative followup.

I would check that, thank you!

It seems that my physical drive has failed.

@ptt:

@luke240778:

Ok all, i am seriously needing help here.

Have you considered the Commercial Support ?

https://portal.pfsense.org/

Have considered it yes. Was hoping that some one on the forum would have been able to assist first, but if i can't get anywhere i guess thats what i'll have to do.

Thank you, that worked perfectly. I enabled the DNS-Rebind check and enabled NAT Reflection.

EDIT: I found this page explaining the problem in more detail and showing other solutions.
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Why_can%27t_I_access_forwarded_ports_on_my_WAN_IP_from_my_LAN/OPTx_networks%3F

When deciding which interface to use to send an IP packet, IP software will send the packet on the interface belong to the subnet of the destination (either the ultimate destination or a router which will forward the packet closer to its destination). If you have multiple interfaces belong to the same subnet then it is not well defined which interface will get used (if any).

There is a Wikipedia article on IP routing which you may find informative.