http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/HOWTO_Install_pfSense#Embedded_.28Compact_Flash.29_Installation

Or maybe sticky the instructions.  ;D

Other clients in the same subnet are working?

You have set the WAN interface is setup correctly?

Steve

Yes you don't have to worry about the limited write cycles of your CF card (within reason) when you're using the NanoBSD image. It is specifically designed to avoid this.

You don't have to worry about performance either since everything runs from ram. In fact the CF card is very slow compared to a HD since it doesn't use DMA.

I believe that if you are using the squid package on a NanoBSD image it too runs it's cache only from ram (or it could be setup as non-caching I can't remember.  ::))

Having said all that there are some threads about running your Squid cache and logging on a separate HD if your search the forum.

Steve

Edit: Like here for instance: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,36724.0.html

Thanks Steve.

I downloaded the correct image you mentioned and then used the win32diskimager and that worked.

Thanks a lot!

Backup your data, the drive is likely dying.

You can also check Diagnostics > SMART Status

If it were random LBAs/offsets, I might be inclined to say it could be a driver/cable/controller issue, but to see the same LBA/offset over and over screams "dying disk".

All unmanaged swithces is automatically layer 2 devices.
if you have managed switch it doesn't mean that it's L3 device, only if it's routing switch(can do inter-vlan operations without external router/firewall), then you can mention it to be L3 switch.

1. All the trafic what goes in one vlan don't (usually, there is special occasions) go through firewall
2. All the trafic what goes from vlan to vlan go through firewall, unless you have L3 switch doing that for you
3. All the trafic what goes to internet goes through gateway device, that is usually firewall.(same applies to point 2)

Is there anything what need clarification?

Tried this morning and got in. Looks like it was a bad password. One thing I know for sure (may be) I was using the same one as for GUI. Go figure :-. Thanks anyways.
I was getting this error - sshd[29368]: error: PAM: authentication error for admin from xxx.xxx…

Oh thanks, I'll look into that also!

It is a glitch that hasn't been addressed yet.  http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,40428.0.html  I have also had that problem on the re-syncing of the packages.  What you end up having to do is "clear the package install bit" under backup/restore.  Then manually reinstall each of the packages after recovering your setup without the package information attached in the xml file.

1. Clear package bit
2. backup configuration (omitting package info)
3. reinstall packages

Oh!!!

Thanks anyway

Yes. Only difference is size. That is covered in the doc wiki, as it's an FAQ.

Blocking BT is hard, because the protocol uses evasive maneuverer to bypass blocking systems. Even having a L7 rules won't block the BT completely.

Let say that your users are not able to uPnP and can't setup a port forward, so they can't receive inbound connections, this will only slow them down in the beginning, because they will initiate themselves the connections. Even if they setup their clients to use a specific port let say 443, in the majority of the clients this is the listening port, uTorrent (not naming any there) will use a high port to initiate a connection, so you can't control this port, this will be a new port for each connection… Adding that they will probably enforce encryption so L7 can't do nothing about this traffic either. Then they will connect to other peers that have their listening ports in common ports like 1723 (pptp) 443 (https), not only this will bypass your router, but your QoS rules will prioritize this traffic... I control my own network at home and wanted to put BT in the P2P queue, I had to create a virtual ip address on my Windows and bind uTorrent to that IP address and shape this ip address completely instean of using ports.

bump ANyone any other ideas?

It did ask me to run fsck but I can't make head nor tail of what came out of that.

Sorry for late reply …

That makes a lot of sense considering the specs of the Mikrotik stuff. Many of my own hours have been taken up trying to push a square peg into a round hole !

Primary reason for asking was the cost of the hardware platform, a 5 port gigabit Routerboard 750G or GL runs to around £50 in UK. The current hardware platform I'm running pfsense on Jetway Atom MB with 5 gigabit ports is more like £175.

My experimentation with the Mikrotik RouterOS on PC platform, I found it difficult to use, since I'm more of a windows hacker than command line. Pfsense on the other hand is very well laid out and easy to do what I wanted, multi-wan attached to single private lan.

Anyway, I'm happy with what I have it works well, and was a lot cheaper than the alternative Draytek Multi-Wan solution that I was looking at.

Yes, that works fine. After you restore it will prompt you to reassign the network interfaces, once you save/apply it will reboot with the restored settings.

Gateway information in there?