Your question is a little vague, but I'm guessing you are asking if you can limit the bandwidth of each user?

If so, yes, 2.0 has limiters which can be set so that a single user (or each user in a subnet) can be limited to whatever bandwidth you like.

@lash444:

It really only takes one person torrenting heavily for the ping to go up drastically.

Then the QoS settings need adjusting. If you are able to get it working your way then that's great, but if not I would recommend reading the link below where I offer a brief howto on getting what you're looking for.

With no traffic on my link I can ping my gateway with rtt of 45ms consistent. When saturating my uplink with unlimited torrents I get 55ms rtt consistent. That's a 10ms penalty on a 10/1.5 link, which is really about what it should be when QoS is working properly (or at least I could before switching to 2.0)!

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24028032-

Update to a current snapshot and try again, at least to June 10 but ideally as new as possible.

Thnx, just wanted to tell someone and make sure I haven't done any stupid mistakes :)

Well, I am waiting for Ermal's changes to make it into the snapshot.

How does the timestamp correspond with the changes.

Ex: Built On: Mon Jun 14 14:14:25 EDT 2010

And commit:

Date: Mon Jun 14 15:26:32 EDT 2010 Committer: Ermal (eriAT@NOSPAM@pfsenseDOTorg)

Anyways, when a link goes down, this is what I see:

Jun 14 19:08:20 php: : All gateways are unavailable, proceeding with configured XML settings! Jun 14 19:08:20 check_reload_status: reloading filter Jun 14 19:08:07 apinger: ALARM: WAN(4.2.2.2) *** down ***

It is going to be made part of the path to the files in some way at least.  Jim-p's idea was to just have the file names different for each size and have the update checker look for files with its size as part of the name.

gnhb: As far as I know, it does not allow assigning bridges at all on the console, regardless of whether they already exist.

If you change only this setting (either enabling or disabling it), save, and then click apply, does it get applied?  Or do you have to change a combination of settings at the same time for it to not apply properly?

I opened a ticket for the GUI inconsistency. It should be fairly easy to fix.

http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/659

When you configure DNS, make sure you picked WAN2 for at least one of them otherwise you will get DNS errors.

Go back under System > General and check there.

The RRD databases are part of the base system, they aren't related to any packages.

Is this a full install or NanoBSD?

You'd really want SSL/TLS+User Auth

It should prompt automatically if you have the proper client config. If you install the OpenVPN Client Export package it can generate a client config file for you.

Oh my… I feel stupid...  I only allowed traffic to the WAN interface ip and not traffic to the carp ip.

So sorry for this...

tommie

so I ran powerd with -v and it does seem like it is setting the frequencies correctly. I also did a test by setting the cpu.0.frequency manually but the power does not decrease. I think the CPU is throttling and not actually changing the voltage to the CPU. Now, if I can figure that part out…

Couldn't get a panic string, but perusing source told me this is memory use checking, so something, and given this is always the end of the backtrace probably something in pf_test, uses memory after it's been freed.

Switching to the regular (unchecked!) kernel the issue goes away.

I'll debug on a VM when I have more time.

@shadow:

reinstalled with this morning's full iso.

had ip addresses on 2 interfaces and one on the bridge they were in, which of course wasn't useful. used the console to set no address on opt1 and opt2, attached a machine via opt2, and got a panic, which i got a picture of, but nothing more yet
panic
mtrash_ctor
uma_zalloc_arg
malloc
m_tag_alloc(+0x52)
pf_test(+0x173)
init_pf_mutex
pfil_run_hooks
ip_output
and so on back to syscall 133 as the entry

if i get a moment i will figure out what the source base is, check it and see if it's obvious.

Upon upgrading it will convert all those things over, so just restore your 1.2 config to the 2.0 install and it should just work. The couple production boxes I have upgraded did, with about 15 clients and servers on each.

Certificate revocation isn't in place yet. If you're using user auth, disabling the account will disable their ability to log in. If you're strictly using keys, you can't revoke that other than manually (though that will be fixed before too long).