It's mostly going to be the RAID card and network card(s) that will give you the most trouble. Version 2.0.x is based on FreeBSD 8.1 while version 2.1 is based on FreeBSD 8.3. You'll have better luck for new driver support in 2.1. If you really want to get down and dirty, check the FreeBSD HCL and see if the device is supported. I can tell you this has come up before and the H200 RAID card is NOT supported in 2.0.x (FreeBSD 8.1) but is supported in 2.1 (FreeBSD 8.3). Do you know what RAID card and network cards you plan to configure it with? Joel

Thanks, Phil.D, for the reassurance.  I've had some weird issues over the weeks that I can't always nail down and i'm just hunting for anything and everything that I don't recognize (… which is a lot!)  :-) Thanks again.

I have this problem with the 4gb nanobsd-vga 2.0.3 image. I cannot get it to boot from USB. I have 3 identical Jetway JNF96 boards. All of them boot 2.0.2 fine. None of them will boot 2.0.3 either as a full install of 2.0.3 or an upgrade from 2.0.x. I get the same message as OP posted.  The system seems to enumerate the USB bus and crash. I can boot older versions and I can boot to SATA just fine. When it crashed the keyboard is unresponsive and my only option is to reset/power down. What am I doing wrong. I built the image using phydiskwrite the same as 2.0.2. It starts to boot and then nothing.

(To help future folks struggling with this issue, I'm reposting this breadcrumb on the pages that are top hits for Google searches for this issue.) It can take quite a bit longer than 5 minutes.  One of the maintainers (marcelloc) explains why in this thread: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=60095.0 Pfblocker uses url table alias lists published on local web server, if it tries to load alias from webserver that is not up, the fetch connections waits a lot (maybe your 5 minutes issue) before timeout. More details are there.  The workaround is to make sure that the first boot doesn't invoke pfBlocker.  This can be done by uninstalling pfBlocker prior to backup, or removing pfBlocker parts of the config before restoring, or just waiting it out (sometimes 30 minutes or more).

1. Have you clicked the "+" button on the bottom of the Interfaces -> (assign) page to add the additional interface(s) to the pool of interfaces available to pfSense? If there is no "+" button see 2. 2. What version of pfSense are you using? MAYBE your on-board NIC is too new to be supported in the pfSense you are using. Please post the output of pfSense shell command``` pciconf -l -v

I have now cleared unused firewall rules and some aliases, that did the trick! My FQDN alias is now listed in the table's. I don't have any specific rule to suspect, maybe it was the rule including policy routing that had an alias for the GW.

Thank you, I didn't even realize I had forgotten to remove Snort-dev.

@amer1canparatrooper: Also, after setting the second LAN adapter (linux) to pfsense LAN address, I am still unable to reach the Internet. It is not clear to me what you mean by the above sentence. Did you set a second network adapter in the Linux machine to have IP address 192.168.1.2? If so, that probably explains what you are seeing in the second ping of your screenshot. I presume the screenshot shows activity on that Linux VM. The ping of 192.168.1.2 responds since 192.168.1.2 is a local address. The ping of 10.0.1.105 gets "Destination host unreachable" since the local machine doesn't know how to get to 10.0.1.105. Your Linux VM needs a default route AND a distinct IP address, apparently on the 192.168.1.x/?? subnet. [image: ping-unreachable.PNG] Also, to answer your question, I didn't set pfsense to be a DHCP server. All my other virtual machines are set as 'bridged' adapters, which work fine since they receive IP addresses from my router.  I have just recently set linux's LAN adapter to intnet as you suggested, which brought about a successful LAN ping. I'm still puzzled. Thanks for any further suggestions.

@wallabybob: the 1GB image might have been suitable for your package mix. I agree, and for the life of me can't remember why I used the 512MB image!!! Thanks for the input

You are right…From now on, I will try not to duplicate the same topics... @cmb: Stop duplicate posting things, you still have 2 threads of this and I deleted 3 others you posted yesterday. Don't ever post the same thing twice.

http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide#Changing_architecture_.2832_bit_to_64_bit_or_vice_versa.29_during_upgrade

Cool, thanks!

Thank you cmb, that is very helpful to my understanding.

The lighttpd logs went nowhere before. So these always happened you just never saw them. It tends to show up more often with captive portal. It's not fatal, you can most likely ignore them.

What bandwidth will is need to handle? What packages are you wanting to run? How many interfaces? Anything else you think might be pertinent.  ;) Steve

As you found by default everything is blocked on WAN. If you need to access anything from the WAN side you have to add firewall rules to explicitly allow it. Steve

Did you look at the sticky? http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,1998.0.html

Should have probably stated I'm using i386 embedded (nanobsd) on a Firebox x700.