yes i've only configured the LAN address. tried to replicate this @home using vbox …. can't get it to fail..... i'm guessing there is code in place to detect identical wan/lan subnets on empty config as it appears that in vbox the LAN-ip is set to null with a default config when wan receives the same subnet by dhcp. could someone point me to that code? i'm thinking that on real hardware, it (potentially) takes more time to acquire the dhcp-lease (background process?) and the default_static_lan_ip is set before the dhclient finishes ? => route corruption ? i'm just speculating

I wasn't being sarcastic ;D  I honestly believe what I said.  My ass would be kicked out the door if I were to run beta code in production for our firewall.

Yep, looks good now.

I just did an upgrade from the web interface. All went smoothly and files like diags_logs*.php system_firmware.php are now gone on the new slice - works nicely.

Oh ok, I mentioned that because it was there and I didn't notice it had re-appeared at some point. Yeah, still a safe conclusion that it's failed given it sometimes doesn't show up at all on the PCI bus.

There was an error in the element name for this control. I just pushed a fix. Thanks for reporting!

Fixed. Thanks again.

For slow drivers you should keep it always rw as noted in: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php?title=2.2.4_New_Features_and_Changes It's because of forcesync patch removal

I confirm this is working now, thank you Steve

The slow rw->ro mount times are the same as in recent versions after removal of forcesync patch. For drives that are slow there, keep it permanently rw mounted. Noted here, search forcesync. https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php?title=2.2.4_New_Features_and_Changes The powerd issue, I posted a workaround in the bug ticket. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5739

@heper: ssh is a pia with multiwan? how is that ? I think he means the ping command is, as you need the '-S $source_IP'. @Jon: If you need more ping for your buck then perhaps you could use Diagnostics -> Command Prompt along with a good read of https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ping&apropos=0&sektion=8&manpath=FreeBSD+10.2-stable&arch=default&format=html Yeah but be really careful to not run a never-ending ping (or any other command) there, you'll have to get in SSH or console and kill it.

@KOM: !!! The board could do with a rename  :) Cheers Jon PS It (2.3) looks pretty close to fabulous.  However I may have a LWN moment (https://lwn.net was always an odd orangy pink colour before a redesign caused the LHS to go grey, luckily I subscribe and can get it back to the old scheme) and want to reskin the brick red back in …

IIRC at least at the time, there was/is a limit to the length of the list of addresses for route-to in pf, and the weight limit of 5 was chosen to keep things short enough. Since it's not a true weight and just the gateway IP address repeated X times, allowing more entries makes the lines much longer. Imagine someone with 5 gateways in a group for LB, each with a weight of 5, so that's 25 IP addresses printed out. Now imagine that with an upper bound of 20. Sure, that's not exactly what someone would typically do, but even worse case "correct" scenario is X gateways at max weight and 1 gateway with a weight of 1.

It's expected to happen since pfSense and pfSense-core repositories are not built at the same time. Build process happens in 2 steps 1. poudriere builds all packages for pfSense repo 2. build scripts from main pfSense repo builds pfSense-core packages #1 must happen first because #2 uses binary packages provided by #1 during build process. I know the pfSense build is still over complicated, but we improved it a lot in 2.3 and we will make it still simpler in the future

That should be fine, David_W.

@Sopalajo: @Renato: Out of curiosity, why do you need an editor? Coming from balance loading on Zentyal over Linux, I developed in the past some simple shell scripts for bandwith measuring that I would like to implement on pfSense. As long as they are based on bwm-ng , I think they will work. By the way, as long as I get more used to FreeBSD, I will migrate my scripts or use another specific bandwith tool. Anyway, is it me or the common feeling in this forum is the "Don't edit any file" idea? @Renato: It's valid to remember that vi is available anyway The most common answer applies here: 1.- I am used to Nano Editor. 2.- I hate VI Editor. Oh, and I also forgot to mention, for people that don't like VI editor, Easy Editor (ee) is available on pfSense

sorry need to learn to search better cause i am far too young to be this forgetful