@marzdor said in Not getting same speed as isp router:

I unplugged the cable from the WAN and put it in the OPT port and it showed up as 1000

Mmm, that in combination with the fact both ports are configured the same starts to look like a problem with the port.

Take a look at a HP t620plus thin client, it needs to be the plus model though not the t620.
The t620plus is thicker than the non plus because it has a pcie port to add a network card.

They are quad core 2.0ghz and use around 12-15w of power, you can find them on ebay for around £100.

The link below has some good information on the t620plus.
Link to parkytowers site

Yeah, I reviewed it with the support agent and we agreed it was an issue that required further testing of the hardware.

Steve

@oktech Vielleicht musst du PPPoE auf dem VLAN machen?

That's using a Netburst Xeon right? It's not going to be fast. I don't have much to compare it with but waaay back when I was running a P4 2.8 it was good for ~300Mbps.
I would expect that pass 400Mbps using firewall and NAT only but maybe not much more.

Try it and see.

Steve

@Parakinesis

or Ruckus and UBNT (in this order) 😉

@stephenw10 I just tried it again and it works. Looks like they finally updated their certs. Thanks for the help!

You have to forward OpenVPN packets on your ISP router to the pfSense WAN IP. The pfSenes WAN address should be static.

Configuring an OpenVPN Remote Access Server

If your public IP from your ISP isn't static, you will have to use a dynamic DNS service to have a static FQDN, which you are able to connect to from outside.
The DDNS update should be done by the ISP router if possible. If it doesn't support that you may do it on pfSense, you can run a cron job with a short interval for that.

Yup, x86 only currently.

Steve

@JeGr gerne. Dafür habe ich das Posting ja gemacht das man aktuelle Informationen findet.

@alpineaudio said in pfSense hardware selection help:

@akuma1x said in pfSense hardware selection help:

firewall black-boxes

and more specific, this one's an i5 https://www.amazon.com/QOTOM-Q355G4-Factory-Firewall-Multi-Function-Appliance/dp/B06XNWLR3J/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_2?keywords=pfsense+firewall+black-boxes+i5&qid=1553882807&s=gateway&sr=8-2-fkmr2

This one is a much better choice!

I'm going to get up on my soap box here... keep in mind, you should try to support the pfsense open source project as much as you can. With the Qotom box you found, you're only about $60 away from the "official" Netgate SG-3100 box. I'm not trying to guilt you into a purchase, and I'm not saying you're going to get a better experience with name-brand or not, but being that close in price, I would send my money to Netgate and the firewall project itself.

Jeff

A bridge is nothing more than a switch... If you need more ports on a L2, use a switch..

How about some details of what your trying to do exactly. What is this device/thing/whatever your trying to connect to a network? And what are the details of the network you want to connect to.

Is wireless involved? I can tell you most of the time - bridging would not be the right solution ;) Unless you are talking about bridging a wireless to wired??

Nobody can help you make a decision or even explain why you would want to do XYZ vs ABC without some details!

Hmm, well if you use Squid/Squidguard to do web filtering I would want to see 2 cores there really, at least.

Steve

I imagine you will fine routing at the firewall between the internal subnets. That hardware is probably far in excess of what you need.

Steve