@ariban99 We are working with you on this ticket right now.

The fact you can't apply/revert those patches is not necessarily a problem.

None of those patches address the error you originally posted though. That should already be fixed in 23.01 so it looks like something might have regressed that fix.
https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/repository/1/revisions/c5c09acd9713a8e3ed3a553dc4d83daf4baf9502/diff/src/usr/local/www/services_dhcp.php

@ddbnj thanks for the info, will check the channel out as well.

@rdatla Did you apply the recommended patches in System Patches? There is specifically a patch for linker files on 3100. Or as a (the same fix) workaround run "kldxref /boot/kernel" in SSH or Diagnostics/Command Line.

Test the card in something else. Assuming it works there check the PCI IDs it's returning.

@mpfrench said in Add RAM to Netgate 1100:

[31-Mar-2023 11:29:12 US/Central] PHP Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 122613632 bytes) in /usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc on line 3961

pfSense version ?
pfBlockerng version ?

If both are current, then yeah, it's trying to load a file in memory that won't fit.
PHP is a process with it's own memory space. It isn't limited to max available system memory, it is allowed to use what is specified in the php.ini file.

For example, this one :

b7e32136-9278-4dfe-b3cd-c5118f873681-image.png

selecting it also shows :

8f880f67-c9a1-44e1-bdc0-4443f720ffb2-image.png

The XXX adult list is quite big : close to 120 Mbytes.

edit : aha : ok, you already know what to do - if it can be done :
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/179185/php-memory-allocation-error-in-pfblockerng-dnsbl

Open a support ticket: https://www.netgate.com/tac-support-request

The LED on the PSU should never flash like that.

Steve

Hmm, I could imagine very high loading might cause the command to not respond at all.

But simply bouncing the WAN would not do that.

You should see 22.05 available as the previous version in the drop down. It should be possible to update to that from 21.05.
But, yes, you can always re-install 22.05 clean to get to it.

Steve

@stephenw10 PureNAT did it ! Thank you

Amazing support. Requested the img and got a link within 2mins.

Thank you!

Yeah, it's unlikely you would ever see 60W, or really very close to it.

The actual idle consumption varies with how many NICs you have linked. On an uncalibrated 'kill-a-Watt' style plug top meter I see 15-16W with one 1G and 1 2.5G NICs linked.

Steve

@stephenw10 I did this right now. Thanks for your help.

@stephenw10

The problem from my understanding is this is not a proper transceiver. It’s more a interface from the Fiber to the xgspon onu. Need something with a MAC address capability and this does not offer it.

@stephenw10 Thanks you. I will look into that when trying it out for real.

@stephenw10 ok cool thanks for that, they all go into the same switch anyway so single port loosing connection isnt too major at the moment, its more just in case one device goes down which it sounds like it will work with

will keep that in mind for future upgrades though

@milesteg The Netgate 4100 will have you covered - it handles 1Gbe symmetric with ease as long as you are not doing deep packet inspection (Suricata/Snort).
It’s the easy choise for your needs.

Reasons to go higher:

4100 MAX: If you really want to log a lot on rules, and in packages NtopNG and pfBlocker. Heavy logging can shorten the lifespan of the regular 4100 because of the small eMMC (a lot less endurance than the 128Gb SSD in the MAX)

Netgate 6100: Twice the CPU power and RAM of the 4100 + 10Gbe interfaces. A good idea if you want to do “normal” Suricata/Snort at 1Gbe speeds, or might think a 10Gbe Fiber is in your future. The extra memory is most likely not needed unless you are doing it for suricata/snort or VERY heavy pfBlocker setups.

Netgate 8200: 4 times the CPU power and memory for HEAVY packet inspection at 1Gbe, or closer to actual 10Gbe throughput in real world multiusage scenarios without deep inspection.

After a few hours of troubleshooting on my own network. I took my 5100 to a friends house and was able to get the expected speeds there. So I returned home and called my ISP. They made some changes on their end (changed vlans and ports) and now it is working properly!

The ISP is new to the area, and still has some bumps.

Sorry for the question to the group, but I am good now.

@michmoor - I do use pfBlockerNG - but I had disabled that during troubleshooting. With all re-enabled, I am now getting expected speeds.

I don't have an answer to the obvious question of why did it work with the PC connected directly to the ONT. The only thing I can come up with is that I did reboot the ONT between tests, so that may have had an impact.

Thanks again to the group.