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.

So I just seen the sticky that this would probably be better in another sub-forum, please let me know if I need to make another thread elsewhere

Thanks Gents, Having the bios password proved to be a game changer. My previous experience with a firebox M400 required opening the case to add an SSD with a working pfsense installation and flashing a Lanner unlocked bios. By contrast, the M570 install was absolutely painless, and I was successfully able to install pfsense after booting from a USB flash drive. I did have to get into the bios to enable USB booting and modifying the boot drive priority. I was planning to swap out the processor for a low power Xeon but I'll let that project sit on the back burner for now. Many Thanks!

@stephenw10 yep LAN still at 100 no matter which port. Even assigning lan to the on board NIC, it negotiates to 1000, but the connection is crashing and giving me other issues, I’m thinking possibly because it’s a Realtek controller. So that’s not even an option now. Lol yes both interfaces are set to default/auto select. I wish that were the issue at this point!

@stephenw10 Brill ️

@stephenw10 said in Its possible install pfSense on Sbx-166lhge-2?: Ah, looks like it's MIPS so not supported. Also it's from 2004 and has pretty low specs (170MHz CPU with 64MB RAM and 16MB flash) so could never support current pfSense. Steve Thanks a lot. Topic solved. All the best.

The hn(4) altq setting only affects hn NICs so does nothing to igc. You may see some advantage enabling LRO depending on the traffic you are passing.