There's a thread about that here: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,54971.15.html

Steve

@heper:

is the gateway filled in correctly on the KVM box ?

yes, in fact ping works fine…

If you just need to make the virtual screen bigger to make the text more legible, just tap right-ctrl + f to maximise the screen.

Can anyone advise which of these packages consumes the least CPU resources. I am running pfsense on a PII-350 with 128MB memory and CPU utilisation is already averaging around 60% when any significant traffic is flowing.

I did previously try bandwidthD on another more powerful setup - but it appeared to "break" the existing traffic graphs - resulting in 503 error message when trying to view OPT1 interface - which did not recover even after uninstalling bandwidthD.

Before trying again I would like to hear from anyone with experience of the various packages to try and determine the one to use minimal resources but still be able to give a breakdown of bandwidth use.

TIA

That's all feasible. It's not exactly something where someone can write out what you should do in a post, it'd take dozens of pages to explain. Read http://pfsense.org/book for the best source of in-depth instructions. Lot of other info on doc.pfsense.org and elsewhere too.

Thanks for the reply Steve

After some thought i came to the conclusion that if i set a rule for torrents and Youtube that it will really only affect the port that is requesting the data. The rest of the network would not really notice it. (i assume) Leaving WAN access unmetered, i can update and download on 9 machines before latency surpasses 65ms. I am quite happy with that but i want to see if controlling bandwidth in a more granular manner can put that back down into the 40's or less.

That for the answer, I wasn't aware of the options you could use with it. Pressing 1 makes it show the same output with the GW field I was seeing.

As for someone pressing it on the keyboard, I'm the only one here and had been nowhere near the keyboard for a couple days prior to when I noticed it. I'm so used to seeing it I'm sure I would have noticed it before then if that's how it had been since I originally brought up the screen. That's obviously what caused it though.

Thanks again.

Got it ! Thanks anyway. I had the box pointing at itself

I FOUND THE PROBLEM!  ;D

It actually has to do with the captive portal. I had to add to and from rules in the allowed IP addresses list. I already had added the server's MAC to the MAC Pass-Through list, and thought that was all I needed to do, but I was wrong. Now that I have added the IP address of the server to the "allowed IP addresses" list in Captive Portal section it is working as it should be.

Thank you guys for helping me troubleshoot. :)  You all have been quite helpful!

following code does the trick

require_once("config.inc"); require_once("functions.inc"); require_once("filter.inc"); require_once("shaper.inc"); require_once("ipsec.inc"); require_once("vpn.inc"); /* invalidate interface cache */ get_interface_arr(true); $retval = 0;                 $retval = filter_configure();                 clear_subsystem_dirty('filter');                 pfSense_handle_custom_code("/usr/local/pkg/firewall_rules/apply");                 echo "The settings have been applied. The firewall rules are now reloading in the background. ";

That command tells FreeBSD to remount an already mounted slice. It is telling you that it isn't already mounted. Which is bad, /cf should be mounted.
It looks like this thread: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,56506.0.html
What does your output from the CLI 'mount' command look like?

Steve

Depending on the OS you use on these additional PCs you might be able to configure them to use VLANs directly.
–> The PCs would communicate via tagged frames only.

Of course this only works if they aren't dynamically comming and going and aren't managed by you.

yeah Chrome isn't playing nicely with thttpd for some reason. I don't see any config options related to that in thttpd. Anyone know how to fix that? We use it because that server serves the bogon updates and it scales awesomely well for huge scale file downloads where Apache was a real headache. I'll look at it more at some point when time permits.

OK, I'll try it. thanks

apparently there's something else, probably in the firewall.
I have an IPSEC lan2lan vpn to another office, traffic from the other end to pfsense work, while the other way around just for UDP/ICMP packets. http doesn't work either!

The problem is solved by the provider. They have set the LAN interface on 100 / Full duplex.

See my notes here for updated info on working with the UML290:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,56696.0.html