@jpvonhemel: So I reentered the code, but I notice my Disk Usage is still 106%. Here is a copy of me entering the code followed by a look at the /var/run directory. I'm not sure what I need to do to fix this. Run on shell: rm /var/run/php-fpm.core

Was supposed to be a few days back, but then they ran into some last minute problems during their last set of testing. They like to release Tues-Wed.

Hi Guy thanks for your replies, I've tried burning it to a CD but still no joy and even change the CD-Rom and still same result. if I try the install on a tower then it installs fine every time but its only when I try installing it on a HP or Dell desktop. I was thinking of installing PFSense on the tower and then removing the HDD and installing it then into one of the HP / Dell. I have 12 PFSense to build and need to sort this issue ASAP.

Update: got it working. If anyone is suffering from issues with VLANS , cable modems and pfSense read on, it might help. Seems the issue might have been due to my switch MAC add being utilized first instead of my firewall box at the ISP end, due to using VLANS? Anyway - to correct this - I attached my firewall box directly to the cable modem and did a system reset and obtained a WAN directly. I then setup my WAN VLAN in the gui and switched to it - obviously making sure all cables were put into their correct VLAN port…  (For some reason I couldn't get this to work via the console?) I am a happy man for now....

Thanks for all your help.

@Derelict: 2.0-RC is ancient. Being an RC config there is no guarantee all the necessary configuration upgrade code was in place. Nor is there any promise that it will be. The problem likely stems from choosing to leave an RC in place instead of finalizing on a RELEASE way back then. It is unrealistic to expect a seamless upgrade to a development snapshot from 5 years ago. Instead of upgrading you could save your config, install a nice, fresh, full install, then try to restore your config. Maybe try to restore just parts of it and see which part is failing. That might save you some work. Yes, I know it's quite old, due to both slices failing I can't tell you the exact version of the RC but I think it was like the last one before release, so I probably had hopes restoring the config could probably work fine. In regards of getting the system up and running with that config it did work perfect, my whole pre-2.0-config was restored and working on a fresh 2.3.1 install, all it did was to break the update to 2.3.1_5. So, I'm good, my problems are solved … I'm on the current stable build/patch and already have everything setup I need running again, was just asking if there is need to dig into that further as here are some threads on the forum about problems upgrading to 2.3.1_5 where I could imagine the problem could also be related to the config files. If so just let me know if I could help ... Besides all that, you guys are really doing a good job on pfSense, keep up the great work. I'll definitly go gold for you guys soon, would also like to buy an appliance but as I am from germany it unfortunately doesn't make any sense regarding shipping cost, taxes, etc.

Great! 2.3.2 should be out on Monday if all goes well with our testing, you will likely have to repeat the procedure again to reach 2.3.2, but after that point you should be OK since the bug is fixed in 2.3.2.

We successfully installed pfsense, we just transferred it to different machine. Thank you for all your response.

After some research it looks like i need the bwm port module. Does anyone know where or how to get that?

hi mate still not working

Putting the different types of devices into actual different subnets/VLANs has the advantage that a device that is physically connected to a particular VLAN port cannot fake being in the other VLAN/subnet. But if you don't have users/devices that are going to be messing about trying to set their own IP address to work-around your access rules, then they can all be in the same LAN/subnet and just give static-mapped IP addresses so you know which devices have which IP addresses. Make an Alias for the VOIP phones that includes the IP addresses of the VOIP phones. Make a rule on the relevant LAN/VLAN that matches the VOIP phones alias, passes the traffic, and set the gateway (in the advanced section of the rule settings) to the WAN gateway that you want the VOIP traffic to take. Set the system default gateway to where you want the other stuff to go, and put rile(s) to pass the rest of the stuff you want to allow, without bothering to put a gateway in the rule - it will be directed out the default gateway.

This is a known issue when pfSense runs on Hyper-V: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=109901.0

looking around here i see that my LAN and WAN are indeed on 2 different ports so that is good. and looking at my host adapter settings config it looks like my host is using the 3rd port so that all looks good. i see my one printer is now connected through my switch so that may now be resolved too. i have to check the rest of my attached devices (my wife apparently turned the printer off without me knowing…lol) once i get the bugs worked out i may change this configuration and put pfsense in front of my wi-fi and set it to an access point so all of my wireless traffic gets filtered as well

Yep… the (flash) disk died  :'( Taking the firewall out and putting on the bench, it was easy to see the boot sequence struggling with read errors. I booted into single user mode, fsck'd it - seemed ok - but then the next boot it was just a mess  :o So, I have a temporary solution to get it back in to service until I build a new unit.

As of this instant there aren't any serious issues in 2.2.x. But tomorrow the next Heartbleed or similar could be disclosed, leaving you with an urgent need to patch. No practical way to do that yourself. So I'd suggest switching to the BIND package, or better, moving DNS to a server machine instead, so you're not in a bind should some major security issue arise that requires immediate patching.

@johnpoz: Yeah I would really really complain about #1..  Why would they force you to use their nameservers??  That is just plain - I will find a new ISP sort of restriction!!! The authoritarian & business reason: Because they can, and they probably have "helpful" things like redirecting to a search page instead of giving an NXDOMAIN response, and naturally they sell ad space on said search page. The reason they might actually admit to: To stop their network from being used for DNS amplification attacks and maybe some other wishy-washy handwavy "user experience" mumbo jumbo.

I think I resolved this and accomplished pretty much what I wanted to do in v2.3.1 by: Create port alias with LAN ports I want to allow outgoing traffic on the "Firewall/Aliases/Ports tab. On the Firewall/Rules/LAN tab, edit the "Default allow LAN to any rule". Change Protocol from "Any" to "TCP". Under "Destination" select "other" in the "Destination port range" "From" and "To" DDLBs. Type the name of the port alias in the "Custom" "From" and "To" Text boxes. Click "Save". Click "Apply Changes".

What's the purpose of keeping the untagged VLAN1 and the corresponding "LAN" interface on the pfSense? I can't find it anywhere in the OP's description. I'd get rid of it, personally. You need two separate logical networks - Staff (VLAN 10, unrestricted) and Students (VLAN 20, restrictive firewall/proxy). That's two VLAN interfaces on the pfSense and a trunk port between it and the main switch. Then other trunks between the main and all other managed switches. All other ports designated for users should be access ports (untagged egress traffic) belonging to any of those two VLANs. If you want to have a separate management or server network, just create third VLAN and use it for that the same way as those two. With these switches you should be able to set up some nice stuff, like MAC VLANs so that you can connect your laptop into any port on any switch and always be connected into your management network with its IP adresses and firewall rules. Mixing tagged and untagged traffic together on the same port should be avoided. It can work and I've done that a few times too, but it's ugly nonetheless. @MisterVance: But all the rest of the switches, I have to use their configuration utility, and it doesn't look on other subnets.  Would that cause any problems? They might need direct L2 connectivity between the switches, so they can't talk across different VLANs. I admit I'm guessing here, because I have got only the fully managed higher-end TP-Links (yes, I know, sounds funny) here so no config utility, just the web and command line. Anyway, in that case it would be one more reason to set up a management VLAN where all the management stuff (and your PC) would be accessible together, on the same broadcast domain.

Glad you made it work mate.  :)

Hi, You're posting in the wrong forum section. Post here pfSense Forum » Administrative » Feedback