Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Virtualized pfSense on QNAP NAS

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    23 Posts 8 Posters 14.1k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • K
      killpilot
      last edited by

      Wow.. I hope solve my issue,

      Fine tonight, I will stop my vm, add the new interfaces with device type virtIO and force same mac Adress than old nic..

      If everything work fine, my pfsense assign the new interface at the right vlan (mac is the same) right?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • ?
        Guest
        last edited by

        @killpilot:

        Wow.. I hope solve my issue,

        Fine tonight, I will stop my vm, add the new interfaces with device type virtIO and force same mac Adress than old nic..

        If everything work fine, my pfsense assign the new interface at the right vlan (mac is the same) right?

        yes

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • K
          killpilot
          last edited by

          fine…

          there two news, one good, one bad :P

          the good is, the cpu consumption is now normal.... when i launch a transfert the cpu up at 3 or 5% ....
          the bad is the bandwitch is worse for than before..... (mi ISP connexion is up 250Mbps / down 1Gbps) the bandwitch test down 15Mbps / up 1Mbps) .....

          any ideas ?

          pfsense-2.png
          pfsense-2.png_thumb
          bandwitch.png
          bandwitch.png_thumb

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • ?
            Guest
            last edited by

            @killpilot:

            fine…

            there two news, one good, one bad :P

            the good is, the cpu consumption is now normal.... when i launch a transfert the cpu up at 3 or 5% ....
            the bad is the bandwitch is worse for than before..... (mi ISP connexion is up 250Mbps / down 1Gbps) the bandwitch test down 15Mbps / up 1Mbps) .....

            any ideas ?

            That is because of this: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88467.0

            Disable checksums! On both sides (host and vm)

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • K
              killpilot
              last edited by

              OK, I'm check this tonight, have a good day

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                killpilot
                last edited by

                hi….

                good news, the network speed is good :D

                i am install pfsense from scratch with 2.3.5. (i don't know if virtualization station support freebsd 11), i restore my conf, reassign the interface, reboot, disable checksum offloading, reboot, and after... everythink works fine, except the openvpn layer... the daemon don't start....

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • K
                  killpilot
                  last edited by

                  so….

                  after troubleshooting, the issu was the loose of auth digest algo config and encryption algo.. i remake it, reload conf and everything works fine...

                  thank you very much for your precious help, and time :D

                  P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ?
                    Guest
                    last edited by

                    Excellent work! good to know that you can use virtio and disable checksum offloading without any extra hacking. Should keep the CPU usage low, but the performance high.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • P
                      pmk3 @killpilot
                      last edited by

                      @killpilot , as I'm sure you know, Netgate just released pfSense as a Virtualization Station app for QNAP devices. I know your TVS-663 supports VS. I'm just curious if you have tried running this app, and if so, any issues? Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you running pfSense with any of the security packages (like Snort, pfBlocker, OpenVPN, LightSquid)? If so, are you able to maintain bandwidth with all of these running?

                      I ask because I am in need of a new firewall/UTM (to replace an ageing Zyxel device) as well as a new NAS. So I'm thinking of buying a supported QNAP device and running pfSense (kill two birds with one stone). My main concern, aside from stability (which seems good from what I've read) is not throttling my bandwidth when running pfSense with the various packages. Any thoughts on this?

                      Hopefully you're still following this thread.☺ Thanks!

                      .

                      K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • K
                        killpilot @pmk3
                        last edited by

                        @pmk3

                        hi, i so sorry for the long wait....
                        so.... finally i remove the Nas pfsense to a dedicated hardware. after this topic, i have a issue with the bandwitch performance.

                        i have a Gigabit Fiber connection, and with my TVS-663 and CPU at 100%, i can exceed 250mbps. and when i installed ntopng, the performance is worse.......

                        finally i move the pfsense into the minipc with i5 and AESNI support.

                        I think that the qnap solution is not yet mature enough to be effective

                        P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • P
                          pmk3 @killpilot
                          last edited by

                          @killpilot , thanks for the follow-up. After giving it a lot of thought, I also decided against virtualizing pfSense. I decided it would would be better to run something this critical on dedicated hardware. I ended up going with a different solution (Fortigate) as I wanted something pretty robust with good support. So far it's working well.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.