Does it actually fail to boot or does it just not show anything at the console?

What's confusing it is the EFI console for some reason. If you installed legacy it would probably boot fine.

It could be come conflict between the serial console and console redirect to the port. Hard to imagine what might have changed there though that wasn't at an upgrade.

@stephenw10 Did not see any jumpers close to where the 4 intpah interfaces are but this might take a while to get it working.

If you want to actually route 10Gbps, yes. I'd expect that CPU to reach something in the 3-4Gbps range. Perhaps that's enough for the times you need to connect between VLANs.

@stephenw10
Thank you very much.
I'll give it a try and let you know.

Just wanted to add some additional information here.

I just did a reinstall on this box to take it to CE 2.7 from plus. During the installation I chose GPT (bios) as the partition type and can confirm that it boots without issue. I think my first install may have been MBR mode.

@stephenw10

All interesting stuff. 👍

☕️

Here is a version with 3 conditional LED adaptions.

#!/bin/sh check_current_states=$( pfctl -vvss | grep -e ', rule 84' -e '192.168.1.11' -e '192.168.1.15' ) res=1 resb=1 resc=1 case "$check_current_states" in *", rule 79"* ) res=0 ;; esac case "$check_current_states" in *192.168.1.11* ) resb=0 ;; esac case "$check_current_states" in *192.168.1.15* ) resc=0 ;; esac if [ $res = 0 ] && [ $resb = 0 ]; then sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.1.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 3 duty 50 >/dev/null sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.2.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 7 duty 0 >/dev/null gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 6 duty 50 >/dev/null elif [ $res = 0 ]; then sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.1.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 3 duty 0 >/dev/null sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.2.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 7 duty 0 >/dev/null gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 6 duty 50 >/dev/null elif [ $resb = 0 ]; then sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.2.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 7 duty 0 >/dev/null gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 6 duty 0 >/dev/null sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.1.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 3 duty 50 >/dev/null else sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.1.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 3 duty 0 >/dev/null sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.2.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 6 duty 0 >/dev/null gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 7 duty 50 >/dev/null fi if [ $resc = 0 ]; then sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.0.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 2 duty 50 >/dev/null else sysctl -q dev.gpio.2.led.0.pwm=1 gpioctl -f /dev/gpioc2 2 duty 0 >/dev/null fi

@stephenw10 said in Would this be hardware enough for 1Gb fiber ?:

The current passed by Ethernet is very low, it should never get hot like that.

Perhaps you had Power-over-Ethernet configured?

ah, sry, it was computer that was hot, not the cable :) That computer is passively cooled.

I just wanted to give an update regarding achieving full throughput on 2.7 CE especially given the recent pfsense plus licensing debacle:

I was able to attain the full 23.5 Gbps throughput on 2.7 CE straight from a fresh install and the aforementioned enabling of the hardware offloads by enabling SR-IOV on the Proxmox host and passing into pfSense the virtual functions (virtual nics). In this situation, pfSense uses the iavf driver which is included in CE and precludes the need for if_ice.ko and ice_ddp.ko.

On a related note: I was able to hit 31 Gbps on pfSense through an e810-cam2 (which uses the same driver setup as the e823. Though I've only just started playing with this 100GbE nic, so 31 is the starting point.

@stephenw10 the best antenna must be hard to find :)

@stephenw10

Hi Steve,

THanks for all your help on this but im giving up. Ripped the card out and sticking with previous setup. Going setup a dev box to play with as trying to do this between meetings on Teams is not easys and there.

I am going to look at going down the wireguard route instead and keep openvpn just for the dialin stuff as I need it to use radius.

Thank you for resolving the issue. There are no issues with the system or hardware. It's my installation issue.

It still applies, it's fixed in 23.09-beta. If you can upgrade to Plus and then to beta it should work there.

It's broken in current CE versions at least until 2.8 snapshots become available.

Steve

Hello,

I've just completed setting up VLANs using a TL-SG105e switch. Despite encountering issues with the switch management software being accessible on every port within each VLAN, I found a solution. I created an additional VLAN called "LINK" with a subnet mask of /30 (in my case, 192.168.10/30) on my Netgate 1100 router. I didn't set up DHCP for this VLAN. The Netgate router was assigned 192.168.10.1, and the switch was given 192.168.10.2.

I'm not a network security expert, so I can't vouch for how secure this setup is, but at least it prevents unauthorized access to the switch admin panel. However, a drawback is that if you need to reconfigure something, you must temporarily expand the subnet mask to /29, assign an IP alias, make your changes, and then return to the "secure" settings.

@digitaladdictions Hello, I am facing the same problem. Did putting a switch between the ONT and Pf appliance fix the packet loss problem?

Hmm, not sure where you got that from then but it wasn't our repo:

[2.7.0-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.fire.box]/root: pkg search realtek realtek-re-kmod-198.00_1 Kernel driver for Realtek PCIe Ethernet Controllers

@stephenw10 said in Weird issue with thermal sensor:

It would be nice to disable just the tz0 object though.

Yes it would be nice - the solution I suggested is the kind of "all or nothing" :-(

@stephenw10 Yes, I know that, but I found it is less expensive than a traditional computer o minipc in my country.

Thanks.

All the best.

Yes, I don't know what the difference is between the revisions but they all look like Portwell boxes. I would expect pfSense to run an any of them really.