I am confused by the description of your network configuration. Please provide
1 a network diagram including IP addresses and network masks of interaces, identifying particular hosts on that diagram that can't communicate;
2 output of pfSense shell commands```
/etc/rc.banner ; ifconfig

@jimp:

How did you "recreate" log logs?

They are supposed to have lots of null characters, they are binary circular log files, the are not plain text logs.

They are read with the clog command, such as "clog /var/log/system.log"

Usually that clog crash means that the logs were not created with a clog format.

Use the "clear log" button on a log tab to clean and re-create the log file properly.

Click Save on the Log Settings tab to restart the syslog process which usually will get logs going again.

Thanks very much. I'd actually worked this out at stupid o clock this morning - i.e. that i was being an idiot and assuming the logs were plain text, not binary. On the upside, I now know about clog and a lot more about pfsense, so 10 hours of banging my head against a brick wall wasn't entirely wasted!

Thanks again - the key point to other users if they are stupid like me, is to not manually kill and recreate the log file to clear it! Use the pfsense gui and manually check it's logging using 'clog [filename]' rather than vi.

When reading both the graphs and the bandwidth-by-IP table, always think of In/Out with respect to the interface or IP address reported. Then the In/Out makes sense.
e.g. when doing a big download:
WAN graph - In is high
WAN IP bandwidth table entry, In is high.
LAN graph - Out is high (traffic is going Out of LAN interface to the device receiving the download)
IP entry for device on LAN -In is high - the device receiving the download is getting a lot of traffic in.

(No comment on the OP about speed figures - I don't have a 2.0.3 system any more to do a real test)

@Fmslick:

still getting connect timed out!?!

You have discussed two different configurations in this topic. Which configuration has the problem?

The HAProxy-devel package can work ok with multiple certificates for different (sub-)domains. Just create multiple "shared" frontends and assign certificates to each.

I have the exact same symptoms. I would really appreciate help/comments on the issue.

It's frustrating to be booting igmpproxy all the time…

That's helpful, thank you.

Whether or not something should be found on the Internet doesn't necessarily matter. Bogon or assigned but unrouted IP space is hijacked and announced by those with nefarious intent all the time. Alternatively it could be something your ISP is assigning internally and NATing, could be that there were routes for 25./8 in the Internet routing table at some point in time (there isn't right now, at least not on our full BGP feed). It also could be any number of other things depending on specifics.

You're on the right track, seperate subnets for both LANs and the Metro-E section

So you would have
site1:
pfSense LAN: 10.0.0.1/24
pfSense WAN (Metro-E): 10.20.0.1/24

site1:
pfSense LAN: 10.10.0.1/24
pfSense WAN (Metro-E): 10.20.0.2/24

and then follow:
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/OpenVPN_Site-to-Site_%28Shared_Key,_2.0%29

I am in an environment where I want minimum power consumption, 12V DC operation (if possible) and so on. I looked around for a way to have the ADSL modem and telephone line connector built-in to the box I used as the pfSense router/firewall. I gave up! In the end we get various ISPs providing internet to the office/home by different means:

ADSL on telephone line, WiMax or other wireless distribution with an antenna on our roof and an ISP-provided end-point routing/connection device, cable/fiber or whatever with an ISP-provided end-point device
…

All the ISPs end up giving you an RJ45 ethernet socket with data pouring in/out of it at the speed you pay for. So it turns out to be much easier to have the pfSense router/firewall with an RJ45 ethernet as its layer 1/2 WAN.

Yes.  Turned off then back on in settings tab and that restarted it.

Would have been nice to have a notification that it wasn't running.

@vbman213:

…
Any ideas?

check MTU on WAN as well

My hardware should comfortably support a HUGE pipe.

yes, this is WAY overkill, a atom can route this easily, are you running any packages or other things on the box that you need this?

This is almost certainly a load-balanced WAN problem. I see that on some forums, dd-wrt for example.
I just created an alias with sites that can't handle multiwan and route traffic to them via a failover group rather than load balance.

Steve