1. Home
  2. pfSense® Software
  3. Retired

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense CE 2.8.x

    28 Topics
    257 Posts
    M
    @Patch Yes, I have just confirmed that it is related to early DNS registration

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 25.07

    67 Topics
    912 Posts
    stephenw10S
    Yes this needs to be addressed. But I would argue that if you can set the pppoe password you already have a high level access and could break things far more easily.

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 24.11

    46 Topics
    434 Posts
    bmeeksB
    @Pizzamaka said in unbound stops and won't start again + high cpu: What still puzzles me is why starting unbound through UI does not work whereas running pfblocker update does start unbound. Not 100% sure, but it could be that when killed unbound leaves behind its PID file in /var/run/. A shell script could potentially just unilaterally delete any existing unbound PID file before attempting to restart it. That's just a guess on my part, though, as I have not looked at the code in the pfBlockerNG scripts. When you attempt to restart the DNS Resolver from the GUI, do you see anything in the pfSense system log at that time mentioning a PID file for unbound? If you do, that would validate my guess.

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 23.09 (Retired)

    65 Topics
    718 Posts
    jimpJ
    Now that pfSense Plus software version 24.03-RELEASE is out this development category has been retired. New threads should be created in appropriate categories for any issues on 24.03. Mods can move threads out of this category into more suitable categories if someone needs to continue an old thread, or link to a thread here from a new thread instead.

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 23.09 (Retired)

    52 Topics
    687 Posts
    G
    @geoffb I can confirm that the parsing of the NTP block is buggy and we can reproduce it on all the uses cases. For the moment, the NTP field is not functional.

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 23.05

    33 Topics
    344 Posts
    stephenw10S
    @bob-dig said in Proposed to upgrade to beta 23.05.b.xxxx, but not following the beta branch: Maybe some sort of check for free space can be implemented in the future. There is a an open bug for that internally but that's likely to be solved be adding features such as: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13740

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 23.01

    129 Topics
    1k Posts
    M
    If you get the message, there's likely a disconnect somewhere regarding the NDI. Please contact TAC with your current NDI and pfSense+ order number (or serial number if on Netgate hardware) to sort it out.

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 22.05

    38 Topics
    290 Posts
    M
    Just want to say I resolved the issue for those who might be experiencing the same thing. I deleted the limiters I had from before the upgrade, recreated them and it fixed the issue. https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/vqhbzw/psa_i_had_to_delete_and_recreate_traffic_limiters/ Apparently people had issues with bringing limiters through the upgrade.

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense Plus 22.01

    16 Topics
    92 Posts
    S
    Bummer. I was really looking forward to sending you wonderful people some $$ for the CE to 22.01 upgrade. I'm doing the home personal now for the home system. I'd also legitimately be able to say home lab. Not sure what TAC light is...but it is also free. Please give us an option to pick so that I can send $50-100 or something your way. Home Lab or TAC light sounds like a good place that I could reasonably convince the wife to spend a little money. I just don't want to spend $400 a year on support on the full version when I have zero intention of wasting your time by asking for support. :)

  • Discussions about development snapshots for pfSense 2.5.x

    16 Topics
    89 Posts
    peteP
    13th of April, 2021 Back to monitoring the WAN link. It is not resetting any more like before. The issues below appeared when I was streaming AOD last night. Working with XFinity to maybe correct these issues. Mon 4/12/2021 18:59:30 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP has packet loss, omitting from routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|13.267ms|1.276ms|33%|down|highloss 18:59:46 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP is available now, adding to routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|15.906ms|5.549ms|20%|online|loss 18:59:57 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP has packet loss, omitting from routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|16.688ms|7.034ms|25%|down|highloss 19:00:01 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP is available now, adding to routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|15.823ms|5.291ms|14%|online|loss 19:00:04 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP has packet loss, omitting from routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|27.761ms|31.182ms|30%|down|highloss 19:00:12 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP is available now, adding to routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|17.575ms|7.674ms|10%|online|none 19:13:36 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP has packet loss, omitting from routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|18.989ms|11.389ms|33%|down|highloss 19:13:38 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP is available now, adding to routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|17.675ms|10.165ms|20%|online|loss 21:25:23 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP has packet loss, omitting from routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|15.089ms|5.734ms|21%|down|highloss 21:27:26 MONITOR: WAN_DHCP is available now, adding to routing group Failover 8.8.8.8|24.XX.XX.XX|WAN_DHCP|14.49ms|5.424ms|16%|online|loss All PFSense functions appear to work OK except for not seeing VPN status on Dashboard.
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.