Unless it's ancient, flash will by far outperform that old of an HDD,
probably last longer, and definitely use less power. Unless pfSense
has some install-time logic I was unaware of, how will it know you're
using a flash-based disk unless you tell it? :-D
Wear-leveling and MTBF have gotten so
I'm running 1.0.1 and having some trouble with bandwidthd, installed from
the packages tab.
If I try to click the link for viewing the subnet...
Pick a Subnet:
- Top20 https://69.17.120.237/bandwidthd/index.html --
172.16.2.0https://69.17.120.237/bandwidthd/Subnet-1-172.16.2.0.html-
which
Hi,
Traffic shaping seems to only apply to WAN and LAN connections.
Can it be applied to an optional interface?
I am using an optional IF as a DMZ and a wLAN.
My attempts to create a new root queue for the DMZ cause errors.
Thanks all,
Darren Cockburn-Dudgeon
Any news on the FTP publishing issue in multi wan configurations or on
additional ip addresses?
I tried publishing on my second wan interface, but only the
authentication goes well, in fact when stating an ls or dir the
client doesn't receive any information back.
Thank you in advance.
On 7/24/07, Quirino Santilli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any news on the FTP publishing issue in multi wan configurations or on
additional ip addresses?
No.
I tried publishing on my second wan interface, but only the authentication
goes well, in fact when stating an ls or dir the client doesn't
On 7/24/07, Paul Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running 1.0.1 and having some trouble with bandwidthd, installed from
the packages tab.
If I try to click the link for viewing the subnet...
Pick a Subnet:
- Top20 -- 172.16.2.0 -
which takes me to...
So i have setup Dual wan on my pfsense and that is working, BUT when i
ssh into a server behind the router, I get what looks to be 2 responses
coming back and doesnt allow me to login. Has anyone else seen this
problem? I can ssh and it will ask for username, and then password, but
doesnt seem
I can do that. I installed RC1 at home last night and I like it a lot but
this other system is in a production environment. Given that, would you
consider RC1 stable enough to deploy?
On 7/24/07, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/24/07, Paul Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm
On 7/24/07, Paul Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can do that. I installed RC1 at home last night and I like it a lot but
this other system is in a production environment. Given that, would you
consider RC1 stable enough to deploy?
Yes, absolutely.
Scott
I hear this question come up just about every day and frankly it
frustrates me greatly. We've been using pfSense in production since
pre-version 1. We've had 1.2-Beta snapshots in production load
balancing a database cluster which handles 35 million requests daily,
and which is responsible
Will do then. I'm going to be changing out some UPS's soon (if they ever
get delivered) so I'll do the upgrade then.
Thanks for the endorsement of RC1.
Paul
On 7/24/07, Gary Buckmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hear this question come up just about every day and frankly it
frustrates me
I'm biased (core dev), but pfSense is built on FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE.
We're basically the userland layer (although we do have a handful of
well tested - usually backported - kernel patches). What you risk by
going to a non-release version is that we won't generate rules
correctly (trust me when I
12 matches
Mail list logo
