Keep in mind the air is a shared media. The heavier the traffic gets the more likely collisions will happen and packages have to be resent or come in as garbage. If you want to simulate this without the wlan just drop in a switch and throw some of the clients connected on cablenics on that switch. Then retest. I bet it's the wlan and not pfsense.

A common issue on *nix boxes.  If a file is open, but deleted, then du will not find it, but df will (correctly) report the space it is using.  Until the file is closed the space isn't freed up.

Dear All,

We are still struggling to make COM port work on pfsense. Could anyone give us a simple script or any suggestions to make us to be able to receive data from COM port?

Any advice would be highly appreciated!

Regards,

dmz

http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,8272.msg46662.html#msg46662

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=pf.conf&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.3-RELEASE&format=html explains it a bit.

:( :(

pls help us…

Does nobody use the search function - VMWare tools is a sticky at the top of the Virtualisation forum!

No I have not. Thank you, I didn't know it existed. I will look there.

One reason for this concept is because of blade systems and server using advanced network storage servers.  FreeNAS  directly to mind.  It in it's own right is a awesome product.  I been testing with it and hooked ISCSI devices directly to is and shared them directly out to ISCSI on 2003 and Vista.  It has some incredible implications.

The other thought is building a computer that has muiltple computers systems in one case (mini-itx)  Possible 2 or more each with ISCSI connections to storage server Z(IE: PFSense on one and Untangle on the other) each providing services to the internal network in a nice clean single 1U or 2U case.  One more possibility is to go one step further and build a ultimate system with three or 4 mini-itx buoxes in a 4U or 5U box.  With the storage server(FreeNAS (ISCSI)) connections via several drives.  This wouls act as the disk storage for both the Firewall(PFSense) and Untangle providing filtering and other services.  Intergrated into the massive box would be a 4 port serview so only 1 keyboard. mouse, and monitor connection would be needed.  Add in a 1GB unmangaed switch for the ISCSI traffic and it all self contained.

One huge appliance replaces many different servers and cut's energy costs.  Just think what the possibilities are?  With a small business customer you can basicly sell a 1000 to 1500 box and then replace a high end router and if you compare the other appliances that are outher that require many different lic's and maintenance charges annually it look very attractive.

This is a concept and I really interested in see how a box built like this would run and looking at the engineering challenges that would take to make something like this practical.

If anyone is interested in a project like this, let me kmow I love to try to figure out what it would take to build a solution like this.  I just trying now to identify hardware and components.

Blade systems are the system of choice.  If we can make our product be able to use that type of system or enviroment it would put even closer to the enterprise system that we know it can be.
RC

I think you might want to try using traffic shaper tool.  I ran in to something like this.  I limited the torrent traffic to 60% of my 3 GB dsl line.  This resolved the issue I was having with torrent traffic killing my network.
RC

1.0.1 is not supported.
–> Update to 1.2

You just need to setup a rule on OPT1 that allows traffic. No need to do any NAT rules.
If you're not sure on how to achieve that:
please post screenshots of the rules you have right now and i can tell you what you need to change.

Not sure, I'm not a programmer (and you've still not said what software you're using that's doing this) so I couldn't say how it's worked out.  It may well be falling back to the global broadcast address because it's intended route fails, but it's all speculation on my behalf.

thanx for the hints. i will dig into it on the weekend.

actually i was wondering, cause the problems started to rise after upgrading to pf 1.2rc3.

i will play a bit around and post the results

greets

cc

I would add the freeNas box to the nework.  If you are using MS active directory I would tie the server into the active directory.  Apply permissions as necessary.  you would be fine from there.  I be glad to work with you.  Send me a private email and we can discuss.

Ok!

I was looking for the CARP tutorial. Finally, I discovered that my problem was that I can't see this tutorial with IExplore 7. I tried this in two different machines, having the last version of FlashPlayer.

However it looks pretty using Firefox …

?

Regards,

Josep Pujadas

ok great, after some research PPTP is not really secure and I need access from NATed client.

OpenVPN is configured and working fine!

Thanks a lot! ;)

For fileserver there is nothing like freenas.org

Well Freenas is a very nice product but it is not as fast as Linux.
This is a fact as samba is notorius slow on FreeBSD and there, read the latest samba entry in UPDATING.

well here it is
Bug #4715 (https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4715) is NOT
  fixed yet, although it won't core dump smbd process any more. Still,
  access to the shares other than UFS is not guaranteed.

if you read the thread of the bug i do not think this issue is going to be solved soon.
Samba team say FreeBSD is in error and the other way arround.

So on high performance samba servers FreeBSD is not the best choice!

Try disabling ACPI: http://devwiki.pfsense.org/BootOptions

I have read about some other funny issues in other threads that went away when disabling acpi.