Thanks for your reply - Will ignore those messages The issue is now resolved - I noticed out of the windows a confused looking BT engineer outside the building while I was considering jumping and ending it all out of frustration. After my colleague approached/beat the truth out of him the mystery was solved. It turns out their was an issue on the line that out of some strange coincidence started as I was putting the new firewall. All sorted and fast as lightning now.

hallo … after killing ntpd on all clients now it works... (ps aux | grp ntdate) kill <process>could be closed</process>

Have resolved this - it turns out my firewall rule to allow anythign out was just TCP so all DNS was being blocked out for my DNS servers. enabled 53 out on UDP and we have internet access Thanks for everyones help

Start by reading this: http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/MultiWanVersion1.2 You'll have to modify things a bit as it sounds like you want two WANs and two LANs. (Your picture link is broken) Look around in the routing and multi-wan forum, there is lots of info there.

Not currently, you could always raise a bounty.

What's about ntop? I've heard there is a package for pfSense? Is it still working?

Nope, the used dnsmasq is a relative simple forwarder. If you wan to support DNSSEC, you have to install a "real" nameserver. And for DNSSEC do not underestimate memory and crypto performance. I would prefer a real DNS-Server inside my boundaries…

Thx :)

You obviously haven't read the hardware sizing page ;)

Thanks guys. That sounds good. Everything is working fine I just wanted to double check ;)

I am also seeing sort of similar problems with 1.2.3 (also tried 1.2.3 RC snapshot)… I am trying to do inbound load balancing in front of 7 servers with different services, with 2 of them completely idle. I keep seeing: "slbd[327]: TCP poll failed to start to 10.1.1.106:143 in default (Operation now in progress)" and the service gets marked as bad.  10.1.1.106 is one of the idle servers. So I am not sure if OP's problem is just related to FTP or an incoming load balancing problem in general.

well i see …its at the moment more a generell freebsd problem on the most USB1.x adapters  if i am not wrong

SSH on to your pfSense host and enter vi /etc/crontab.  You may want to learn how to use vi first ;)

The issues that loader.conf can cause/resolve are so pronounced that you would HAVE to modify it to even use the router at all.  If you're seeing >10% of your bandwidth come through the pfSense box/proxy, then you're likely not affected.  Most of the issues have been corrected with more recent versions of the squid package as well as bumps in the underlying FreeBSD versions.

Hi dreamslacker, wow..  very good! I'm testing in lab on IBM xserver x226 - 1 Intel Xeon /1GB ram/sas 150GB mirror raid with on board broadcom (wan interface) and a old 3com 10/100 (lan interface) I have to configure pfsense for obtain bandwidth management, I must allocate equals bandwidth for each Vlan.. I'm testing this… but unfortunately ..don't wants apply my rule.. pls.. tell me if is correct: menu -> firewall -> traffic shaper -> pfSense Traffic Shaper Wizard and go to Setup network speeds ( interface: vlanXX and set adequate download/upload kbs) this for each Vlan interface... is ok? thx !! I look forward to your kind reply. Robert

Would be nice to have the top bandwidth users at a glance, tested rate but it only show one line, with the public IP of the firewall, not the real users inside… Should I change somewhere the interface being monitored? I'm using transparent proxy by the way...

Firewalls!. The pfSense firewall rules can be used to control communication between interfaces/subnets. The pfSense firewall capability is based on the BSD pf firewall facility so you could do some reading on that to better understand what can be done with pfSense. Never used the freebsd firewalls before, I only am familiar with iptables. I will do reading :D

From which IP 172.16.x.x are you trying to ping which IP 10.x.x.x? Your second rule in NAT will be never applied but this is not a problem now.