uTorrent has become really chatty due to its µTP algorithm. It floods routers with tiny UDP packets instead of most torrent clients which let TCP handle everything (which usually use the full 1500 bytes).

I don't know if that's relevant, but you could try a client which doesn't support µTP and see what happens.

my temps look fine too, and inside is pretty clean, i only built the thing less than 6 months ago.

for those who you try to use easyphp as your web server for a repositry you need to do the following

hardcode $freebsd_machine as described above edit your httdp.conf for two things:  listen on your interface (not just localhost) and change your default directory allowoverride to all (from none) add a .htaccess file to /packages/config directory that contains 'AddType text/plain php inc xml' to stop easyphp from trying to render the files rather than just transfering them.

When you make a bridge, it is not fully destroyed until you reboot, even if you disable it in the GUI.

Normal, pFsense hasn't a FTP server included.

The question has been asked many times, and answered many times because why not.

If you guys do a 1+1 (SSH+FTP)  - see the messages above then you have the solution : SFTP !!

Works great with FileZilla or SmartFTP or …! These support de SFTP protocol.

Just remember to use port 22 (SSH) - the user name will be 'root' (not 'admin') ans select the LAN IP of your pfSense box. Use also the SFTP protocol and you'll see !

i found the problem. my browser is always open and constantly refreshing bandwidthd and imspector. the downtime were when the wireless burped and timed out the page till i manual refreshed it.

mystery solved

look in /etc/inc/services.inc around line 952.

Afterdark,

Take a look at my topic. I am getting the same thing I have narrowed it down the firewall dropping packets but definitely have nothing past that.
What you can do is have 3 windows constantly ping 3 different ip addresses LAN (Side) Wan Side and the Cable router. When you lose internet connection take a look at your pings if all 3 are still pinging then the firewall is working.

http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,24407.0.html

It gets better every day, but it won't be released until it's "ready", whenever that may be. Hopefully sometime later this year.

Have you added the correct Firewall rules to permit traffic from the pppoe clients to the internet?

free tech support for life  ;D (via the forum)
new features are added all the time (theres a lot of features)

LAN and DMZ are just names.  In your case your "LAN" interface is simply the DMZ.  Don't worry about the name ;)

no, you should read the documentation for pfSense, by default everything inbound is blocked, one must specifically add rules to allow traffic inbound

http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=78

If you are running vmware servers (on top of windows) I guess the supported hardware would be what's supported by windows, since there is a hardware abstraction layer between the windows host and the VMs.

If you are gonna run ESXi you will have to check the compatiblity list for the release you intend to run.

However tunneling a wirelesscard through the hypervisor to the VM I have never tried and I actually would never do either.

Hi,
i receive answer on mailing list so i can consider this problem closed.

Answer was:

"You can't do that with a bridge, a bridge is transparent. The gateway
must be something upstream. If you want a setup like that, you need to
set it up to properly route so the gateway is on an inside interface."

Thanks anyway

You probably need to have the LAN port connected. For more details see the last few replies in http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,13351.15.html

It would be great, if you could give more information on what exactly you do not understand from my writing. As it would be helpfull to give a hand for you. I can not assess your level of competence, so it is hard to choose language to help you.

Did you manage to test the same, only on pfSense Virtual Server put address 192.168.1.75, instead of 192.168.1.162?