i was searching the web and freebsd forums related to this and it seems to be a specific issue related to kingston datatraveler USB flash disks. probably some1 having same can try it out to prove its a bug.

i was never a fan of kingston crap anyways, lexar the best till date for me  :)

@NOYB:

Just pointing out the change in case it wasn't intentional or happens to matter to someone.

The think there is a sufficient number of DHCP related problems reported and a sufficient number of "getting started" problems to warrant restoring the previous behaviour. Alternatively, add a GUI option to REDUCE the verbosity of dhclient logging.

@jdijulio:

I need to use the msk interfaces, which have suffered from watchdog timeouts, which I'm under the impression that 2.1 fixes.

I'm a bit late to the party on this but it looks like 2.1 (and hence FreeBSD 8.3) may not resolve this. However there is a work around that seems to solve the timeout issue in any version.

Add the following line to /boot/loader.conf.local

Create the file if it doesn't exist.

No one has yet seen any timeouts with that set. Please report if this doesn't work for you.

Steve

It works OK for me, on  Fri Feb 22 06:01:13 EST 2013 snap with the fix to is_altq_capable. I can make those messages come by purposely putting higher reserved bandwidth for Voip compared to the overall connection speeds I entered at the start. But it works fine if I put lower figures.
You need to put the full link up/down bandwidths in on the 2nd wizard screen, with correct units selected, for WAN#1 and WAN#2.
Is it something simple, like you entered 5 Kbits when you mean 5 Mbits?

yep, now just need to figure out: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,59298.0.html  :P

well in my case i dont want my clients to get access to other servers or devices that y i was looking for such a netmask

Ah, fair enough.

Steve

I am got the same problem, vHost is good module to be use for some additions local webapp. Hopefully, we got the vHost for platform 2.0  :-*


@jimp:

Check the config history and see what changed in the config when you pressed save. It's possible your gateway was missing an internal value that allowed it to function properly. This post is old but may be relevant: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,50095.0.html

My config history doesn't show that change in it…it seems like the history doesn't go back far enough.  Also I read through the thread you quoted...I don't recall ever experiencing a problem like that.  In any case I'm happy with the way things are working right now.

Thanks,

Bruce.

Ticket #2835 http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2835

Yeah I noticed that later and went back and fixed it. Thanks!

That is also much higher than another system that just has 2 OpenVPN clients connecting out - which has only 57M Wired.

I think the only option is reading the source since pfSense uses a patched version on pfctl/pf for this:
https://github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/blob/master/patches/RELENG_8_3/killifstates.RELENG_8.diff
To change the behaviour you would need to adjust the patch, I guess.

Then find a hoster that isn't trying to implement broken IPv6?

Please kindly find the error as below, using android mobile client, it seems that when the throughput is over 3-4Mbps, then the connection start to drop.

Feb 21 17:35:28 openvpn[99575]: calvin/182.239.65.158:47055 Connection reset, restarting [0]
Feb 21 17:35:30 openvpn[99575]: TCP connection established with [AF_INET]182.239.65.158:36451
Feb 21 17:35:34 openvpn: user 'xxxx' authenticated
Feb 21 17:35:35 openvpn[99575]: 182.239.65.158:36451 [xxxx] Peer Connection Initiated with [AF_INET]182.239.65.158:36451
Feb 21 17:35:35 openvpn[99575]: xxxx/182.239.65.158:36451 MULTI_sva: pool returned IPv4=10.10.111.10, IPv6=(Not enabled)
Feb 21 17:35:36 openvpn[99575]: xxxx/182.239.65.158:36451 send_push_reply(): safe_cap=940

Works now on tonight's snapshot…thanks!

Bruce.

2.1-BETA1 (amd64)
built on Mon Feb 18 22:59:11 EST 2013
FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p5

Some of my interface graphs in the dashboard and on the Traffic Graph page are showing impossible speeds, likely about double of the actual amount of traffic there. Could this be related?

In the screenshot, the WAN has a 42 Mbps d/l speed. The LAN traffic is coming from nowhere but the WAN, but shows higher speeds (and a similar curve). Note that there are other interfaces pulling from the WAN, so the WAN and LAN curves won't match exactly, but the LAN speed should not exceed the WAN speed.

double_traffic.png
double_traffic.png_thumb