kern.cam.boot_delay=10000 in loader.conf.local did the trick.

Exiting to the shell before you reboot, you are not running in the pfSense environment, but the installer environment.

Nope, Renato fixed it. I also reinstalled my primary system today, all fine.

Quote from the ticket:

Unfortunately they need to be reinstalled

Issue found and updated PR submitted #3418.

Fix is there for the most part, just needs to get pulled.
See: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/3384
And: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=121613.msg684763#msg684763

Hi doctornotor… i understand...

Best, hirschferkel

@phil.davis:

I still get the issue if I have just the Interface Statistics widget open (and not the Interfaces widget).
"Final solution" proposed in https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/3396
and see notes on the issue at https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/7134

(original bug introduced by me - my bad! but it highlights how it would be nice to have some automated test environment that can set up/tear down an environment for each test and automagically try a lot of combinations to make sure they work together and apart)

Hmm, I use the following tagline on one forum I use:

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

Not referring to your bad, it's just that someone will still manage to break it.

I switched to NET-SNMP and all is well.
Thanks everyone!

As really PFsense seems to just use a single main filesystem anyway, I just loaded it up with UFS instead of ZFS, as drive redundancy is handled by the RAID controller itself.  Just funny that UFS will just boot and run, but selecting ZFS ends up with a non-working system.  I have another almost identical server, but it's running Ubuntu, but with a ZFS root, and it boots just fine, so a FBSD quirk for sure..

Awesome! Thanks bud.  :D

@Simba7:

Depends on the wife approval factor. I don't think throwing $300-500 on a new router, not to mention a pair of dual port 10GigE NICs and dual 4 port GigE NICs, would be approved.

We currently are utilizing a Checkpoint 9070 box running pfSense and it has 4x10GigE ports and 10x1GigE ports.

Well 500$ seem to be nothing compared to the monthy rates for a 10GB Internet line :)

Doesn't that system have at least 2 Xeons? Does it really benefit from offloading crypto for OpenVPN?

I hear what you're saying.  Perhaps the pfSense folks wanted to get these units out before Christmas?  I don't know, but I do know that I don't put too much emphasis on the release status.  All software is essentially beta code that is deemed "good enough" to ship, with subsequent development always ongoing.  As long as it works for me, I don't care if it's badged as release, RC, beta, or Alphagetti-O's.

0_o

@athurdent:

IIRC State Killing kills all the states, not just the ones of the gateway going down.
I suggested a workaround for not getting kicked out of management but it got rejected.
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3429

And this is why I have a Raspberry Pi sitting right next to my SG-1000 so I can do all the console work from the serial port.  You can't beat an out-of-band console for robust administration.  Of course that won't help if you're administering the system from the WAN side of things… But it's better than nothing...

also someone has repeated the other problem I found and files his own report.

thanks for your testing PiBa is appreciated.