Hi,

Read your write-up 5 times.
At best, it's not very clear.

What is a "Plex server" ?
"Plex is running on a Server 2016 VM hosted on a Server 2016 box" AND "I am in the same LAN as the server and have tried different RDP clients and different devices." In this case, pfSense isn't used at all, you could even shut it down. RDP will work.
I have my 2008R2 on my LAN, and can connect to them from any other PC device on the same LAN. No traffic is 'touched' by pfSense in this case.

One of my Windows 2008R2 can be accessed from the outside (Internet) using RDP. A simple NAT rule on pfSense will do the trick.
Don't know what NAT refection is.

I guess you have a VM setup issue here.

Btw : check your keyboard. At least one key is broken.

Everything I am doing is 2.4-RC on a XenServer VM. I have no reason to believe 2.3.4_1 on a physical would be any different.

Sorry for reviving an old post but I just ran into this same issue on my newly purchased SG-4860 running 2.3.4-RELEASE-p1

This doesn't seem very intuitive & seems like it could potentially cause some unexpected & problematic behavior if someone deletes a LAGG & then tries to use the ports individually without being aware of this "functionality".

The reason being, when you assign interfaces to a LAGG, they all are given the same MAC. The potential problem (and definitely unexpected behavior) is that after removing the interfaces from the LAGG they all retain the same shared MAC!

In the attached screenshot you'll notice that igb4 & igb5 have the same MAC. That's because they were assigned to the same LAGG at one point & then removed. This was definitely not expected behavior & took me a while to figure out why it had happened since I had never manually set a spoofed MAC on the interfaces directly.

Is this behavior really functioning as intended?

Interfaces.jpg
Interfaces.jpg_thumb

I must to add the line in /boot/loader.conf

hw.mfi.mrsas_enable=1

I can not give you any scientifically sound information on it (Steve probably can), yet, I am using VPN with a Celeron without AES-NI, to download usenet movies, and I have 150 Mbit down, so I think the lack of AES-NI is not a performance problem.

Unfortunately that could be anything. It could be the drive itself, the cable, the port on the motherboard/controller, even drive firmware and not a hardware fault.

Check Diagnostics > SMART Status, see if anything looks out of sorts there in the 'All' output for the drive. Maybe even initiate a test and see if it finds anything.

If it's a SATA disk, swap the cable out and try a different SATA port on the motherboard.

If that doesn't help, it probably is the disk.

The crash report you attached indicates a filesystem issue. The LAN address part might be related, it certainly does not sound like any problem I've heard of unless you had an IP conflict or overlapping networks.

To fix the filesystem crash, use the console and boot to single user mode. Then run "fsck -y /" a few times until it does not find anything, don't stop when it claims to be clean. It may take 3-5 times.

Is this how you do that?

Hi,

had the same problem yesterday. It´s gone now, i have changed the topology a little bit.

New topology:

VNET: 10.17.0.0/22 (3 subnets) pfsense wan interface: 10.17.0.4/24 pfsense lan interface: 10.17.1.4/24 pfsense default gateway (azure): 10.17.0.1 pfsense lan gateway (azure): 10.17.1.1 client subnet: 10.17.2.0/24 pfsense static route: 10.17.2.0./24 --> 10.17.1.1 azure user defined routing (udr) bound to client subnet 10.17.2.0/24: 0.0.0.0/0 --> 10.17.1.4 10.17.0.0/22 --> 10.17.1.4

Regards,
Martin

dude that is borked setup.. sounds like your running 2 layer 3 networks on the same layer 2..

@johnpoz:

But there is an old saying "Nobody ever gets fired for buying cisco" ;)

… or IBM :)

That sounds like a hardware problem. If when it reboots you see a crash report there may be something you can do. Otherwise check the system log for errors.

We would need to see where it stops in the boot process to know any more.

Steve

As helper correctly stated traffic between "lan" devices has nothing to do with pfsense.  If your talking from you lan to your wan (internet) what is the pipe you have for internet?  130 user sharing internet can quite often be a problem if the internet is connection is not fat enough for them all to get a speeds.

How is your pfsense configured?  Are you using squid in transparent mode?  If so, you won't be able to block facebook https connections in a safe way.  Maybe you would block pfsense using firewall rules pointing over facebook CIDR ranges using aliases.

Would you explain how do you have configured your pfsense, so i can help you better?

Awesome. Thanks a lot!