@elspoon said in Protectli VP4630:

was following NetworkChuck's YouTube video to the Tee for about the first 15min... your home router SUCKS!!

At this moment, he, Chuck, is given totally non important setup information.
He didn't tell you that :
From now on, all your private ( ?!) DNS info goes to 'some' companies. Why would he advise you (us) to use these, or any other DNS server(s) ?
These DNS servers entries can be left empty.
pfSense, out of the box has a working SNS setup.
pfSense resolves !

DNS was working just fine for decades before 8.8.8.8, 1.1.1.1 etc came along.
I do not say 8.8.8.8, 1.1.1.1 etc make things worse ... but not better neither.
So, again, ask the question : why are they there, what is there ultimate goal ? 😊

@stephenw10 Thank You. Let me try the same.

Just to put some closure to this thread... It was the PCIe lane being saturated. Upgraded the hardware to a motherboard with a PCIe 3.0 x16 and this is the result:

final.jpg

@Gertjan @keyser @stephenw10

That was my expectation too. I didn't notice anything during the boot process. I was in a hurry, so I didn't look carefully at the logs.

At the moment it is not a problem, the backup was only a few hours old. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't do anything wrong at the initial setup.

Ok, thank you very much. I will give it a try tomorrow.

Can you see them in the BIOS POST output?

I would try the card in the PCIe slot only first.

Do you have a PCIe 1,2 or 4x card you can try in the slot directly?

Do you have a mPCIe card you can test dircetly? A wifi device maybe.

Steve

@stephenw10

Not to worry
Know dif between 2.5 GbE that can run over cat 5+ copper
SFP which is 1 GbE based fiber and
SFP+ which is 10GbE based fiber.

G

Performance gain will only be marginal there but saving drive writes can be significant. You must have quite large drives to run with pfBlocker?

If it's running OK, not exhausting the RAM drive, then why disable it?

@stephenw10
yeah, I do consider that. Thank you for you support and time.
I think subject is closed.

Best regards
MKo

Wanted to provide an update regarding this issue to share awareness for those who are running into the similar issue I was experiencing.

I stumbled upon this forum, https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/not-showing-correct-ram-for-vm.70219/ and I confirmed inside of the Proxmox VM configuration, I had HotPlug enabled for both Memory and CPU.

As soon as I removed this from the VM Option and reboot, it resolved my issue and now I can see the correct Memory Allocation in the PFSense Dashboard.

a312e75c-a55b-48ae-80f0-93883e14f387-image.png

9ba076be-333f-4ac2-aa09-643d53798aef-image.png

I will say that a lot of the bad rep Realtek NICs have is left over from their older 10/100M chips that were truly terrible. The 1G NICs were much better, but that's not saying much. The 2.5G 8125 seems OK from my limited testing.

Still amusing 😉 https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src/blob/devel-main/sys/dev/rl/if_rl.c#L46

Since I got stuck with a non-connecting SG125, thanks for all the explanations that allowed me to find correct settings to access the freshly installed appliance.
For future users, see the connections in the picture below, valid for SG125.
I have only tested igb4 and igb5, but I suppose it will continue igb6, igb7, igb0, igb1, igb2, igb3.
SG125_igb_conn.png

Ah, good result! 👍

It checks the status returned by the disk(s) every time you open the dashboard.

See: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/master/src/usr/local/www/widgets/widgets/smart_status.widget.php#L85

Steve

A day later and, indeed, can confirm one of the modules in the MagicMirror was doing a nmap sweep of 192.168.1.0/24 (legitimately, just not clear why the static IP range) confirmed by shutting the module off and temporarily corrected by putting an explicit block rule on LAN > * for 192.168.1.0/24. Still not quite clear what, exactly, loads of requests on :80, :443, ICMP to 192.168.1.0/24 hosts being dumped out on my ISP router ended up doing. Likely, though, the fact that my router was in bridge mode contributed, though I never tried in route/NAT mode, so I can't be sure. Regardless, it's fixed now, but what a nightmare! Thanks @stephenw10 for all the patient help, even if it didn't end up being a PFSense issue in the end! At least it's fairly well documented here so hopefully anyone with similar issues in future will have a reference for other potential problems...

Yup, that's one of the many advantages a real AP offers over using WiFi hardware in pfSense directly. 😉

Ok so that error is actually secondary. It's failing to display a notice but the initial issue generated that notice.

It's probably a file system issue that can be fixed by running a check from single user mode:
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/filesystem-check.html#manual-filesystem-check

Steve

@stephenw10 I got it sorted in the end. Mikrotik on the other end of the link, freed up one of the SFP+ ports. Very simple...

@Gertjan said in Stuck at booting:

igb8 and igb9

Why these two ?

Usually it's because there are 8 NICs on board and 8 on an expansion card. The expansions card NICs almost always get parsed first putting them as igb0-7. Then the on-board ports that are marked as #1 and #2 become igb8 and igb9.

@stephenw10 I just found a more highly related thread and just 2 minutes before your reply here posted there:

https://forum.netgate.com/topic/167192/newbie-question-is-the-6100-directly-compatible-with-this-fiber-connection/23