The actual panic error you're seeing there shows it's a filesystem error. You can probably recover form that using fsck from single user mode if you have not flashed it yet: At the SG-1100 console press any key to interrupt the boot loader when you see: Hit [Enter] to boot immediately, or any other key for command prompt. At the 'loader>' prompt enter: boot -s That will boot in single user mode to a question asking for a path to the shell, just press return to reach the # prompt. At the # prompt run the following command: fsck -y / Run the fsck command at least 3 times; Repeat the command until no errors are reported, even if fsck claims the filesystem has been marked "clean". Reboot by running: reboot Steve

If you are seeing that exact error where it shows it can see the attached USB stick: scanning usb for storage devices... 1 Storage Device(s) found But cannot boot from it's either the wrong image or the image is not correctly on the USB stick. Check the file checksum of the image to make sure it dowloaded correctly (and is the correct image). I recommend using Etcher to write the image to USB. It can write out the image from the compressed file directly which eliminates any issues extracting it. Steve

@stephenw10 OK many thanks.

Thank you for the helpful insight. I will look into replacing the hardware with a more current model. Thanks again.

@Derelict Problem Solved! Thanks. Your suggestion of reviewing the logs put me right on it. I was typing FQDNs (rather than hard-coded IP addresses) in the IPSEC P1 RemoteGateway option, which works great when you don't fat-finger the name--couldn't resolve my typo. BTW--This product (pfSense) is incredible... the log pages are awesome... and I am back on track. Thank you. There's a lesson here... I jumped on the default WAN LAN interfaces because that is what I changed... but it was basic troubleshooting that prevailed (we geeks make problems as complicated as we can).

The SG-3100 is available with or without an m.2 SSD from the factory, or you may have fitted one afterwards. The / slice will be ~8GB if it's running from eMMC. Steve

Hmm, not exactly sure what you're asking here. You need to trunk all of those VLANs between WAN and OPT1? And you need to filter between them or just pass them between the ports? By VLAN1 do you mean untagged leaving the switches? Steve

Open a ticket with the Netgate support: https://go.netgate.com/support/login -Rico

What I did to correct it was move the cable to a different port on the modem. I left the configuration as auto select.

Yeah no change. Booted single user and ran FSCK about 20 times it would say clean each time but rebooted and tried from the shell only to get an SU+J error and a long list of incorrect block counts right away. I"ll open a ticket, thanks everyone.

Cool .... forgot about that one : [image: 1569427476197-f01f0b70-1c64-4d55-b71b-81bd08b52937-image.png]

ok, I will Thanks :)

Restored. There is an issue that has arisen, but I'll start another thread.

sadly only on our dreams an italian isp would do that

@eholcroft said in SG-1100 Throughput: So just to close the loop on this: Hooked up the XG7100 as a comparative test and got 873mbps on speedtest.net. That's more like it. Except I don't think I'll be putting a $1000 router in my home any time soon. I'll take a look at the product lineup and see what Netgate pfSense will give me closer to what I need. The SG3100 I guess. Didn't really want to spend that much on a home router, but I'm in deep with Comcast Gigabit now so I might as well go all the way. The picture offered here https://www.netgate.com/blog/netgates-new-sg-1100-punches-way-above-its-weight.html really seems a bit optimistic. Not sure what the conditions of that testing were but I wish I could replicate it here. So to other buyers out there be warned - while the SG1100 is an impressive little device, it doesn't quite live up to the hype. I have no horse in this race, so to speak, but looking at the page you linked there are some bar charts at the bottom where the results somewhat agree with your real world experience. Of note, look at the bar chart showing packet filtering enabled. Notice that depending on the packet size configured (256 bytes, 512 bytes or 1500 bytes), the bits/second number changes quite a bit. What is actually more important is the pps (packets per second) processing rate. That is pretty much fixed and determined by the CPU in the box. It stands to reason, though, that larger packets wind up producing a greater bits per second rating. That's what the bar chart I referenced illustrates. With your speed test site, you don't really know exactly what size all of the packets are. If they were all uniformly 1500 bytes, then maybe reaching the 800 megabits/sec rate is reasonable. However, with smaller packet sizes, since the packets per second rate is fixed, you get overall smaller throughput when measuring in bits/second. Note that the first bar chart on the page is showing performance with pf (the packet filtering firewall) disabled. Very few users would run that way, though. That's just a plain vanilla router with no firewall enabled. The second chart shows performance with the firewall enabled.

thanks to both of you for responding. i have opened a ticket with support requesting a system image. i will post later how things transpire. Chuck

@onlinecanuck said in SG-1100 WAN interface goes down very frequently.: did have it set as DHCP before as I knew that was what my modem/router combo used... Using DHCP on WAN is fine. But .... There is one thing that needs to be checked : if your pfSense is using the default 192.168.1.0/24 and your upstream router has it's LAN in the same network 192.168.1.0/24, well, then things break. Change your pfSense LAN network, for example 192.168.2.0/24 - or change the LAN network of your upstream router. edit : keep in mind : when you connect a router like pfSense using it's WAN interface to a local, existing network, pfSense behaves as any other device that you already have on this LAN (there could be other PC's, printers, media stuff, whatever). All these devices are hardwired - or even using Wifi) to the upstream ISP router. This connection should always be stable and up. If not, check your cables and or switches.

@kiokoman great!

When I had just flipped the IPs between FWA and FWB yesterday I still had loss on FWB but did not test from FWA perhaps. I just moved FWB IP to FWA and put another free address on FWB. Loss now on FWA. Going to be calling the ISP again. I did some other crazy stuff to route from FWB to FWA to get to 8.8.8.8, did packet captures and proved FWB was indeed sending request packets for the dropped pings being reported. Thanks for the suggestion.

I pulled the trigger and did this - you need to restore the VLAN config from factory over top of a restore, and it then works okay.