@stephenw10: There is now package for apcupsd which is especially for this. There is no need to connect more than one machine to the UPS. Whichever machine is connected runs a daemon that broadcasts messages over the network to inform other machines, running the client, of the UPS status. I've not tried the pfSense package, it was only released a few days ago, so I don't know it's capabilities. It will be able to run in server mode in which case you would connect the UPS to the pfSense box and then configure the NAS to look at it. The NAS is probably running apcupsd underneath but I have no idea if it's able to be configured to allow a client on pfSense to lok at it. Try it and see. Steve Thanks for the suggestion Steve  ;D The Synology is running some (I don't know which one yet) server, so I would need a tool that gets the signal from the Synology. I already found the thread of the apcupsd package, so I will ask there too. [image: ups004.jpg] [image: ups004.jpg_thumb]

i have just started experiencing this problem. though it seems to be occuring with add-on intel cards see also http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,70832.0.html

Or better yet, once it's solved post a summary of what the problem was and how it was fixed, for future reference.

Well its a 16-bit EtherExpress 10/100, so its not cardbus (32-bit). USB adapter was recognized for its chipset (dmesg showed it and the system reacted when I unplugged/plugged it in).  But apparently no native drivers. Flipping the interfaces from wan/lan to lan/wan had no effect, other than the collisions stayed with the 16-bit card. I'm hoping its a faulty card.  pfsense box is now back on the test bench pending arrival of the DLink (hcl compatible) pcmcia card.  I may try to load drivers for the USB adapter just for grins while I wait for the big brown truck to arrive later this week. More later.

You may like to read through this, unsolved, thread and see if the finding there line up with yours: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,70773.0.html There was/is a known issue that might be effecting you: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2555 Steve

@opjohnny: @biggsy: @opjohnny: Unless ESXi knows how to send a shutdown command to pfSense … It does.  You just need to select the right shutdown mode: That simply just "cuts power" to the VM before ESXi continues its shutdown process.  It's like holding the power button on a PC or laptop until it turns off. No, it does not just cut the power to the VM.  For me, this is the key benefit of VMware tools.  I used it, quite deliberately, yesterday to shut down a whole host without having to shut down each of the individual VMs beforehand. Of course, if ESXi isn't told to shut down gracefully, as happens in a power-fail with no UPS …

You can restart the monitoring daemon (Status > Services) and it will wipe out the old loss data. We have seen that happen before but have not been able to replicate the circumstances that result in the problem.

@phil.davis: Now I understand your problem - I hadn't looked hard at the "custom provider" bit of your needs. The software that generates the GUI form - services_dyndns_edit.php - is just lacking code to add gateway groups to the dropdown for the "Interface to send update from" field. It really should have the same list as the "Interface to monitor" field. I appreciate the heads up on the pages that you wrote; I'll give those a try shortly. Thanks Phil!

Sounds like you have a flakey line. Try setting up two failover pools and split the clients between them- see if the cable or the DSL people complain more. I've never liked round robin with lines that aren't the same.

Ah, that's disappointing. I never got around to trying the syslog-ng package as all the boxes I could try it on are NanoBSD. I'll have to try again to get a hybrid Nano+HD setup functioning and give it a go. Steve

You can view all four on the dashboard by just opening the graphs. The monitor IP is what pfSense uses to determine if your WAN connections are up correctly. By default it uses the WAN gateway IP but you can change that if you need to. Steve

Thanks, Squid might be the way to go. Is there another way? I ask because I did try installing Squid today, per the instructions here, but then the internet didn't work from the LAN until I uninstalled it… Either I have to figure out how to fix Squid or find another way to do URL rewrites...

I changed the verification post count from 2 to 1 so users only have to do the verification for their first post rather than first two posts. Sorry for the annoyance, spammers are a big problem with popular forums like this. USB NICs in general aren't great, regardless of OS. The FreeBSD drivers for some of them tend to be pretty unreliable. This might just be that your USB NIC isn't well supported in FreeBSD, though I wouldn't expect the NIC to completely disappear in that case. Usually when there are driver issues, the NIC still shows up, but it just doesn't work right or at all. That might be a general USB problem with your system. One thing you might want to check is if you have the latest BIOS on the system, sometimes that fixes weird issues along these lines. VLANs might be a good option instead.

Hello, everyone. I too have noticed that version 2.1 has broken my old reconnection scripts. The login method shown in the documentation page for the config backup script apparently no longer works, and while using plink may still be a valid solution I'm not using Windows either (and if at all possible I'd like to stick to bash and wget/curl). So I'd like to have some help here, and it would be nice if the documentation got fixed as well. Thanks.

The NAT rules, like the firewall rules,are evaluated on a top down basis (AFAIK) so moving your manual rule to the top of the list causes it to be catch your traffic to the modem. This is an issue here but isn't mentioned on the PPPoE modem docs page because you seem to have both the modem and the PPtP tunnel end points in the same subnet. Thus when the pptp tunnel is established a NAT rule for that starts catching the traffic destined for the modem and sending it out of the default gateway (the pptp tunnel). At least that is my interpretation of it given that I've never dealt with a pptp WAN.  ;) Make sure your manual rule is specific enough not to catch anything that should be going via pptp and you should be fine. Steve

There are some other NTP enhancement discussions going on in another thread, you may want to look at what they're doing: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,67189.0.html

It should work just the same, really. The easiest way to diagnose it would be to run some packet captures as you attempt some authentication tests from the GUI and PPTP, to look for differences in the queries.

So why not use traffic shaping? Steve

This is awesome thanks guys, I have some late Christmas shopping to do!