Bandwidth? The hardware you need for a 56 Kb/s dialup link will be rather different from that required for a 20 MB/s broadband link ;) Packages? Are you planning on using it for anything more than a firewall/router?

Thanks for the insight.  Any other comments about the 64 bit and the dual core stuff etc? In case anyone cares, I did setup a Linux box (2.6 kernel) to handle the speed limiting per IP address.  It doesn't seem to have as much demand on CPU and RAM etc.  This combonation works quite well. Thanks pfSense.  I'll keep testing to see if this will handle my needs.  If so, expect a donation.

States require roughtly 2KB a piece.  Do not over commit the state table. Also look at modulate-state which will help in these situations.

Thanks everyone after giving them some ebay prices and telling them that it would be better to keep the cisco they decided to stay with it and use pfsense and a firewall behind.

@coolgg: I've installed pfsense on a dell 1750( 22.4G Xeon 512K cache / 2G ram / 2GE on board) for NAT testing. WAN bandwidth is 400Mbps. testing load now is about 10Mbps(in)+10Mbps(out), cpu at 10%-20% what's the top performance can this machine reach while stable? You tell us. We don't have hardware that size to test, and requirements in a specific environment for a specific amount of bandwidth will differ greatly from one environment to another. I would guess it should do 400 Mbps with CPU to spare, but "it depends". CPU will likely be your first bottleneck so watch it while you're doing your testing.

Worked perfect for me added .sh and executes everytime with bootup and very very very little cpu usage, THANKS!  I think this should def be put in the next release on the embedded image but disabled by default and added somewhere under the system menu.

Yes, typo. It can handle much more than that.

That's is definitely good news.  I can easily get this from a nearby mail-order company than getting a CF to IDE adapter and a CF card separately.  :)

i found it a while after reading this thread

I get about the same msg in monowall net48xx-1.231 #hifn0 mem 0xa1108000-0xa110ffff,0xa0884000-0xa0885fff,0xa0003000-0xa0003fff irq11 at device 14.0 on pci0 #hifn0: proc unit did not reset #hifn0: proc unit did not reset #hifn0: crypto enabling failed #device_probe_and_attach: hifn0 attach returned 6 What i find so far is a bug in the driver for the vpn1411 but not affecting the vpn1401 Still looking …

We need a top under high load. If it happens again run top again and paste it here.

Yes, you use firewall>virtual IPs for that.

Hi, i have bought 10 pieces but the delivery follows…. I will update the information about the box in the next future.... bye heiko

Just to add something to scott's comment: This affects this special nexcom model (and maybe others that use the same nics). There are other nexcoms that have intel nics for example that will run just fine with the current release of pfSense.  ;)

Pascal Dornier from PC-Engines will provide such a testboard once he hands out the first samples so we can make pfSense run smooth on it. We already have talked to him about this. This means this hardware will be supported by pfSense as soon as you can buy it (if nothing unexpected happens).  ;)

As this system only has 1 sis nic it will come up with the assign interface dialog at boot when using the default config so you have to assign interfaces via serial console first unless you change the config in your flashfile so the device is accessable directly at the nic on bootup.

Managed gig switches aren't even all that pricey anymore unless you need a bunch of ports. I have a managed gig switch at home, though it was purchased by a pfsense supporter. Netgear GSM712, it's a great switch, and you can pick one up off ebay for ~$150 shipped if not less for 12 gig ports. Roughly the same price as a 24 port HP or Cisco 10/100 switch. I've also had good luck with Dell PowerConnect switches and they're cheap on ebay as well. With replacements under $200 it's not even worth arguing over, pick up some modern switches and and dump the 1900's in the trash. Managed switches are ALWAYS good, not just in big environments. I won't even use an unmanaged switch at home.  ;D

@bogyver: Thanks for clearing up that for me. Is it possible to add the driver to pfsense, either in the regular release or for me to add it to my own box's setup. If i would need to add it two my own box, i would need some guidance as how to do that. Any help is greatly appreciated Not easily, no.

Experience shows FreeBSD and shared IRQ's will result in problems. I've seen it myself. There are many, many threads on here and in the list archives of people having issues because of shared IRQ's. Now, that's not typically NIC's sharing IRQ's amongst each other. I don't think I've ever seen that. Usually it's a USB controller or IDE controller or some other piece of hardware sharing with a NIC. The FreeBSD list archives have posts from people much more knowledgeable of FreeBSD than anybody on this forum saying it'll result in reduced performance. Again, that was never in the context of NIC's sharing with NIC's though.

Cool, I guess there will be no problem running i386 on this sever, as I saw a good report from a user on the exact same box. BTW: I installed it last night on my home firewall machine (was an IPFW install using FreeBSD 4.1) and I have to saw what a great job you guys have done. I'm really impressed with it. Regards Ben