Tried it just now and it generated/downloaded the .xml. Its a mystery.

@cabledude When going from the 1100 to the 5100, just reassign WAN, LAN, and OPT to igb0....etc and you should be good.

@luisaraujo

Does your restore really know what's inside the ISO ? Can't you just be "nasty" , and rename the 2.4.5.iso to 2.4.4.iso, and do the restore ?

@gertjan very cool :) even better then going to the console

Thank you so much!

@caveat remove the usb stick there are other errors maybe try a clean install or you can try with pfsense 2.5.0 https://forum.netgate.com/topic/154804/updating-to-2-4-5-release-p1-with-usb-wifi-adapter-rum-ralink-crashed

Hi, No, I never did solve the display problem, fortunately I've only once needed it and just did a hard reset instead. The Z90D7 is brilliant with pFsense. I have it set up with a TP-Link 5 port managed hub using one direct network connection to the Z90D7, four V-Lans (WAN + 3 x LANs) and two WiFi networks (Home + Guest) using the built in WiFi card. I use pFsense for all DHCP, DNS, firewall rules and schedules and it manages four Gigabit networks and a 75Mbps broadband connection with no hassle. The only thing I have noticed is the web DNS lookup seems to be slightly slower than using IpFire with four dedicated network ports on an HP microserver. My usage is not particularly demanding (home use) although I shift quite few video files around (editing etc.) and have a teenager with permanently attached mobile devices used mainly for gaming and social networking :-( I have two Z90D7s, both bought from 'connie100779' on eBay with no problems. Hope that helps PaulM

@lucky06480 said in Fresh install does not give Internet access [RESOLVED]: Thank you for the link. But unfortunately , all checks pass … I finally found the solution: Valid (tick) "Disable hardware checksum offload" resolved my problem" in [[i]System / Advanced / Networking] Probably the external (WAN) USB-ETHERNET is the problem source. It is curious, because the same hardware work perfect on different computer (Raspberry Pi, netbook, DELL PC, …). May be a driver bug ? Best Regards, Lucky Came here and made an account just to rant about this issue. I spent a whole workday finding the problem, installed pfsense multiple times because i thought something is wrong with the image or some bug in recent release. And i am not using USB-ethernet but VIRTIO in Proxmox on Intel Hetzner-Server. I bet i am not the first stumbling across this problem. Outbound NAT just simply stopped working when having this hardware checksum offloading not deactivated. It doesn't even throw an error anyway. Guys....

Editing the /conf/config.xml AND deleting the /tmp/config.cache file should work in general.. Then changes should show up in the webgui, and after applying the settings haproxy should just start running. For haproxy i dont see any issue why it wouldn't work.. (besides perhaps some reference to a certificate-ID that might not exist in the current config..) The haproxy config itself is pretty stand alone regarding all the other parts. (unlike some packages that generate certificates/config on first install already) imho the issue with restoring a complete backup file is that it go's trough a reboot which isn't always nice when just adding a package to a production system..

It's not really a bad assumption, I would also expect that to work in there. Sometimes you just hit a corner case and some odd incompatiobility. Steve

@gertjan Thanks, that's all I need to know!

@jasonl I got it working...bounced my phone :)

I had a GEDODE board that refused to boot from USB , and made a CD. Now it "booted" , but i think i got the same error as above. I don't have access to my notes right now , but i think the solution was to specify some kind of "Wait for disk ready" delay or retrys , in the CLI. And then boot. /Bingo

@gertjan, Thanks for your help. I've been out for a bit. came back and the mapped drive connections are still stable. I think the fqdn was the key, followed by a restart of the NAS. A benifit of this exercise was i found info on power tuning the Synology NAS. I took care of that at the same time and the file access is much faster. Now i'm going to plan the next network project which will be the changes needed for a VPN.

@dedwards There is something else going on here. With all on the same subnet, PFSense would not be involved unless it was doing something like DHCP when you already have DHCP through your servers. If the client picks up DHCP, for example, from PFSense instead of your DHCP server, it could end up in the wrong subnet and so not see your servers, causing a failure. So make sure that PFSense is not providing any DHCP. Only other thought, if you have more than one LAN port on your PFSense and are using them instead of a dedicated switch. PFSense is not a switch; each lan port is a different network. Other than that, I don't see how PFSense, or any router, would have any influence on what you are doing, as everything you have setup is on the same network. PFSense would not have any bearing here; firewall rules would affect the connection to the internet, but nothing between clients on the same subnet. Whatever switch you are using, is connecting your servers to your clients and that's it. You don't even need a router for what you are attempting to do with WDS.

@marekandreansky said in Box dead after reboot, caused by UFS corruption ? ZFS vs UFS?: Any idea why its not the default option for pfSense? Read this. The bad news, and good news : ZFS is already build into the kernel, which makes it much bigger. Also, processing and maintaining all this information will take many more CPU cycles. Ok if you have a 'big' processor. ZFS won't work on small drives, and needs a lot more RAM. A router / firewall is normally not file system bound, it use the storage device to boot, and store some boot settings and operational settings. So, I guess, by default, it's very overkill to use ZFS as the default. But these days people have firewalls have multi cores, with 250GB++ (raid ?!) drives, and several GB if memory, so ZFS could be an option. The next time I re install pfSense, I'll choose ZFS, if I remember the option. The thing is, it will take years before I have the occasion to do so ^^

Moved this to new topuc since it's unrelated to that 2 year old thread. You are unable to ping 8.8.8.8 from pfSense itself? Does it have a valid IP address, subnet and gateway? Does it have a default route? Are the virtual NICs showing as UP? Do you have other VMs there that can connect out? Steve