thinking I will take you up on that…Will try moving my wifi to its own separate lan this weekend. thanks..didnt think of that one

It is not incompatible with the motherboard as I have run Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Ubuntu, and Linux Mint with the same set up without an issue.  My question is simple, does pfsense support installations on m.2 PCIe-based SSDs?

and how many interfaces does this computer have? You want to do this physical or with vlans?  Do you have switch that supports vlans?

What you did should have worked.  Edit the config.xml and change the interfaces to the new interface names (igp0/igb1?) Beware search and replace or you'll probably whack some crypto blobs. Be sure every replacement is actually an interface name. Should only take a couple minutes.  Then it should restore without the interface reassignment phase. Not that that's what blew up. It should have worked.

im looking to get a hang of the fundamentals. Then configure your network in a fundamentally-sound way.  Not one that requires hairpinning traffic in and out of 192.168.1.1 to get from 192.168.1.26 to 192.168.100.3. You also have to disable NAT in pfSense. or you won't be able to directly address 192.168.100.0/24 at all.

I installed the openvpn export package and all is working fine now.

MEDIUM ERROR Smells like a wonky disk. pfsense 2.2.4 32bit i386 builds are being phased out.  Why not install the x64 build?  The hardware is certainly 64-bit.

sir no luck…

Hi again :) Thanks for the quick response. Unticking the forwarding mode actually seems to have fixed it. Not sure where I picked up that I had to tick this setting, but it seems to do the trick. Many thanks for that!!!! While we're at it, would you know if I should tick the "Block Private Network" box in "Interfaces: WAN"? My understanding from the contextual help is that because I'm behind another router that I need to un-tick this? Is that corrector should I leave it ticked? Many thanks again for your help!

As the others have already said, this is dead simple if you know what you're doing.  Hopefully you did NOT specify a gateway for your LAN NIC. Post screens of Interfaces - LAN, and Firewall - Rules - LAN.

there is a HUGE freaking difference between 7 years and 12 years in computer tech… Freaking HUGE!!!

Thank you  :)

From here…. https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=97554.0 It would seem you could boot into single user mode (even on full install) enter the commands and enable TRIM. You would need your device name (might get that using the dmesg command and then doing the steps).  Might try later.

@beetlejelly: Is another process writing to this file and breaking unbound? No, that's typical of what happens when a file isn't fsynced and you lose power shortly after writing it. Should be worked around now, and reported upstream to be fixed in Unbound. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5334

Shrew Soft should "just work" in 2.2.4. Early 2.2.x versions, there may have been issues there.

Yeah there are some similar things there on other pages. I think that should look fine in 2.3, but would appreciate a double check there.

I don't see pfSense mentioned anywhere in his post. It takes a special kind of person to come to a product forum and ask for help with a completely different, competing product.  That's likely why his question has sat for two days without reply.

@johnpoz: "Transfers were failing because name resolution failed - eventually - as best I could tell" In the middle of the transfer?  So where you doing sftp or what?  Or was that just some example and you have some application/script using sftp? As to the world being perfect and fair?  Ok - you can not get a switch to do a switches job?  How is that?  Who would only give you 10 IPs in a 10.x.x.x network?  The 10 address space has some 16 million addresses, you could have over 32k /24 networks.. What freaking idiot would set it up so a site/location/department whatever could only have 10 IPs??  Or that you would have to do nat inside your 10 space? Makes ZERO sense.. Fix that nonsense!!  Or you you know what there are 2 other major networks you could leverage in the rfc1918 space that give you another 1.1 million addresses to use.. That you should be natting private address space inside a companies network is just NONSENSE. Sanity and idiocy aside, this is not an environment I control.  I work with what I have, and I have 10 IP address in a private network range and I have many systems that I need to have behind those addresses. NAT works well in this case.  Those machines need access to each other and some systems on the 10.x private network.  They don't need access to anything outside those two networks. Now if you were supporting a different company and they were also using 10 that steps on yours, then yeah you would have to nat those between your 2 companies.  But that a single company would limit you to 10 ips in 10 space is just freaking ridiculous..  Bring that up to ever it is to be brought up to.. Get your IPAM guy fired if need be, clearly he has no clue to address space management if can only have 10 addresses to work with and have to nat your 75 machines..  Why could he not give you a /25 out of the some 65k /25's that are available in the 10 space?  How many network segments in your whole company network?? After running into these issues with 2.2.2, I took a breath and waited until 2.2.4 came out.  I set up with just IPV4 and so far it's working as I expected.  Whether that's correct or plausible is whole other question, but I'm working within my limited skills on this.