Ok those settings are good. But you can see it has added automatic rules on the OPT1_TV intreface which implies there is a gateway defined on it still. There should not be a gateway on OPT1_TV.

@stephenw10
You were right, it was the ram !

I did a memetest and ended up with 4 passes but 0 errors. That was strange.

I ended buying a random stick of ram with same specs and replace it and also putting it in other ram slot. It's solid for 4 days now.

So what was shut down here, the Proxmox server? Not just the VM?

Does pfSense respond at the virtual console?

Does it show the expected IPs there?

Are you sure your traffic from LAN side clients is actually going through pfSense? Does it stop if you shut down the pfSense VM again?

Steve

Done.

em NICs are single queue. Only one CPU core can service the incoming and outgoing traffic queues. That means that on a 4 core CPU like you have it can never load all the cores.

igb NICs are multiqueue and here are attaching with 4 queues. Enough to load all the CPU cores sufficiently to prevent other services running.

You could override that by setting:

Or you could try to set a lower max interrupt rate like maybe:
hw.em.max_interrupt_rate=2000

But just swapping the WAN and LAN NIC assignments so LAN in em0 is probably easier. Unless you're not local to the box.

@Gertjan

Good point - I never actually looked at the script referenced only the post that it was provided on. 😏 but yes that is why it doesn't show as running on his 6100. It is.

Fixing the cron timing so that it does not "Blinkenlights" so many times - should make everything happy on both systems. Only need 1 Blinkenlight in the hour. 🤣

@Sergei_Shablovsky said in pfSense CE 2.7.2:

Confirm: the several times like this…

faaec2ef-3dff-4b3d-a321-c38d7a9c0060-image.png

28d95a49-8508-447b-be3f-c797ffb05706-image.png

Confirmed.

Nope those errors in the nginx log are almost certainly nothing to worry about.

Thanks

@SteveITS said in RAM disk?:

FWIW we run Suricata and RAM disks at most clients without issue.

Good to know, thanks.

@SteveITS said in RAM disk?:

OTOH the UT1 list in pfBlocker takes over 1 GB just to extract so YMMV on these things.

I don't had this 1 GB on my radar, thanks for the hint.

New topic here to investigate the issue since pfBlockerNG is not the cause.
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/189820/how-do-i-find-out-what-write-continuously-on-my-pfsense-ssd

@EricAiken said in pfsense and oracle virtualbox (guests blocked):

Virtualbox guest interfaces are bridged to to host's NIC

If you're using bridged NICs in VBox then there is no NAT happening. VMs should just get a DHCP lease from pfSense. I have that setup here and it works fine. Nothing special should be required on pfSense other than firewall rules to allow traffic out. And those would normally already be present.

Steve

Yup that^.

See: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/services/dyndns/index.html

@Unoptanio not sure what your trying to show there? Yeah that is how it works.. If you ask dns to lookup something it will ask all the ns you have listed..

Whats your question?

I take it your doing dot forwarding since you have the fqdn listed their for cloudflare.

Keep in mind when you tell pfsense to lookup something, or it needs to lookup something itself and uses those.. Say for a check if there is an update - it isn't going to be using dot.. Only unbound would use dot when it get asks to lookup something and your forwarding. If you have 1.1.1.1 listed as pfsense dns, and pfsense itself goes to lookup something from 1.1.1.1 its just going to use a normal in the clear dns over 53.

If you want to make sure pfsense never asks in the clear and only via dot, then you put your NS in there you want to ask using dot, and set pfsense itself to ignore remote and only ask local host.

uselocal.jpg

Ah, cool! Shouldn't be required though, be good to find out what's actually causing that. Someday!

Anyway glad we were able to get a workaround in place. 👍

@jmbraben Restore reinstalls all packages which would pull the files from the latest 2.7.x as I recall. Starting in 2.7.2 one has to manually change the update branch to move to the next version do it is safer now.

The problem is, let’s say the current version has a later PHP and a package is dependent on PHP, it will install the later version which may not work with 2.7.0 code. Or similar with various libraries.

.1 fixed several security flaws: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/releases/2-7-1.html#security

@jonatkins said in pfSense 2.7 makes HP printers crash:

Any specific patches I should enable? I can't see anything relevant.

I am not sure, but you can try apply all recommended patches, just for test, i think most of them anyway will be applied on the next version available.

Good job! Perhaps you could document it for other users?