Sorry - not a FreeBSD guru - how would one go about adding that to pfsense?  I assume that it's something that the developers would have to change at compile time?

Interesting. My system has a VIA VT6202 USB 2.0 controller and a USB WLAN device connected to it works.

I have had one running for about 6 months 24/7.  No problems at all.  My basement never gets above 65F.

The FW-7520 is a bit misleading in the pictures on the website.  There is a space for mounting a 2.5" SATA drive internally and it comes with a dongle for VGA.  The FW-7522 just adds room for a 3.5" SATA drive.  I'm using the embedded image since I don't really need any packages for my usage.  For 1.2.3, the embedded image is based on nanobsd and supposedly allows for packages.  That would remove the need to use the VGA dongle.

Ok, thanks. If you will come across some, drop a message here please.

I have tried with more than on NIC when they use the re driver I have the same problem.

http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,20009.msg108036.html#msg108036

The answers you're looking for are scattered about ;)

Assuming you're looking at 802.11g you have a typical effective bandwidth of about 22 Mb/s.  Anything you buy these days will cope with that kind of bandwidth.

http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.2R/hardware.html#ETHERNET

The general consensus is: "stay away from realtek" a "intels are good".

Hello again,

after a long time using the machdep.cpu_idle_hlt=0, I upgraded to 1.2.3RC3.
The upgrade kicked my custom sysctl.conf, so after the reboot the whining sound reappeared, but its tonal characteristics changed after the upgrade.
I checked the noise just before the update by changing the value back to "1" and there was no change. But right after the update the noise was more constant.
It sounds now almost like squeaking sounds.
So it seems to be more Software related than we thought. :)

Regards

Thankyou for your comments! I´ll guess that embedded or not embedded is a question that has been around sometime.
Hopefully that someone will see the thread and leave some comments. =)

Tnx for your reply. I discovered the cause of the problem. In the BIOS settings there is a APIC setting that could be version 1.0 / 2.0 or 3.0. For me the 1.0 setting works fine.

@fry42:

Hi,

I've got the same config here: IM-945GSE running 1.2.3 RC3 on a 100/10 cable conn.

I just did a short test using Transmission on my MBP:

Ubuntu ISO @90Mbps = some latency increase (test-ping went from 25ms to 60ms).
Some other torrent @10Mbps down/5MBps up (about 3000 states) didn't really increase the latency.

Effort required vs. demand. The time that would be required to make SPARC work in our build system isn't worth it, the time would be better spent elsewhere (unless someone is willing to fund the development, and there's so much work in it that it's likely anyone who has a pile of SPARC boxes laying around would trash them before spending the kind of cash it would take to spend a considerable amount of time adding support).

The only reason MIPS was added is Ubiquiti funded that development.

Patches welcome of course (i.e. if you want to do the work, have at).

Talking to myself here…

The problem was solved by scrapping the idea to have two network cards in that poor Thinkpad :-)

A switch Procurve 1810-24G av VLAN was the answer to all my needs.

For the curious:

Defined two VLAN:
[LAN] VLAN10 port: 1-22 Untagged, 23 excluded, 24 Tagged
[WAN] VLAN20 port: 23 untagged, 24 Tagged

Hardware:
Netgear CG3200 Cable Modem WAN-line (gigabit, NAT=off) into port 23 (100/10Mbit; Service provider is ComHem, Sweden, Stockholm)
Thinkpad T43 (gigabit internal nic, bge0) into port 24

fpSense NIC-config; VLAN:
[LAN] VLAN10; vlan0
[WAN] VLAN20; vlan1

Latest speed test with above config gives me: ~102 Mbit downstream and ~11 Mbit upstream.

Conclusion of above is as I see it that you shouldn't bother with multiple NICs in a PC. Go for one good gigabit NIC and leave the rest to the switch!

Brgs,
iorx

If you aren't having problems, leave it enabled.

I'm pretty sure if you search you'll find a few threads about that board ;)

Whether there's an FSB or not shouldn't be exposed to the OS. It should work fine, provided the I/O controller in the chipset is supported, that's what I'd be more concerned about. The box wouldn't be too useful if you can't use any disks or USB ports :P