Hi.
I have seem to reach a point whereby I understand the Traffic Shaper /
queue's functions. (Atleast I think I do). [image: Wink]
Although with specific data like torrent data, it seems not able to handle
it right. It always goes to default queue, no matter firewall settings.
But when default
ok
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Michel Servaes mic...@mcmc.be wrote:
u can come on chat Google chat) i will help u my best.. .
mohanra...@gmail.com
Though this answer might be interesting for the person who has asked It.
It is totally useless to the mailing list.
If everybody
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:10 AM, A Mohan Rao mohanra...@gmail.com wrote:
ok
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Michel Servaes mic...@mcmc.be wrote:
u can come on chat Google chat) i will help u my best.. .
mohanra...@gmail.com
Though this answer might be interesting for the person who
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, A Mohan Rao mohanra...@gmail.com wrote:
yes very easy u can use acl its working fine with groups and individual..
Thanks
A Mohan Rao
indore
india
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Shibashish shi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on pfSense 2.0-RC1 (i386) and
u can come on chat Google chat) i will help u my best.. .
mohanra...@gmail.com
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Shibashish shi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, A Mohan Rao mohanra...@gmail.comwrote:
yes very easy u can use acl its working fine with groups and
Le 16 mai 2011 à 08:58, A Mohan Rao a écrit :
u can come on chat Google chat) i will help u my best.. .
mohanra...@gmail.com
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Shibashish shi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, A Mohan Rao mohanra...@gmail.com wrote:
yes very easy
u can come on chat Google chat) i will help u my best.. .
mohanra...@gmail.com
Though this answer might be interesting for the person who has asked It.
It is totally useless to the mailing list.
If everybody acted the same, mailing list would be filled with 0 answer…
Please post your
I'm on pfSense 2.0-RC1 (i386) and have been using it as a
firewall+load-balancer.
Can i do Traffic Shaping for certain file type... like flv and mpg?
I have to serve big sized (~50Mb each) flv and mpg videos but i have a
limited bandwidth... can i allocate a specific bandwidth like 5Mbps only
yes very easy u can use acl its working fine with groups and individual..
Thanks
A Mohan Rao
indore
india
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Shibashish shi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on pfSense 2.0-RC1 (i386) and have been using it as a
firewall+load-balancer.
Can i do Traffic Shaping for
Hi,
I run a relatively high traffic website on pfSense (Version2.0-RC1
(i386) built on Thu Mar 17 07:27:35 EDT 2011).
During very heavy traffic, I see that my OpenVPN connections or SSH
connections drop or are not able to get through. I'd like to enable
traffic shaping and reserve some bandwidth
I have a pfSense box with several interfaces and several IP addresses.
I just want to shape LAN-WAN. I have seen listed problems about
multi-interfaces shaping dilemmas, but I didn't see anything to indicate
that shaping would *not* work on a multi-interface machine. This is
the error
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Joshua Schmidlkoferjoshl...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a pfSense box with several interfaces and several IP addresses. I
just want to shape LAN-WAN. I have seen listed problems about
multi-interfaces shaping dilemmas, but I didn't see anything to indicate
that
Hi Guys
I have just configured pf sense to do traffic shaping in our network, and i
hoped that the p2pcatch all could detect the p2p traffic from the linux
transmission p2p client, but unfortunately this traffic is going into the
default que..
By looking i the wireshark traces, it's really hard
Make sure that its not using UPnP, as that bypasses shaping, or did last
time I used it.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Thomas Elsgaard
thomas.elsga...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Guys
I have just configured pf sense to do traffic shaping in our network, and i
hoped that the p2pcatch all could
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 16:35, Thomas Elsgaard thomas.elsga...@gmail.com wrote:
I have just configured pf sense to do traffic shaping in our network, and i
hoped that the p2pcatch all could detect the p2p traffic from the linux
transmission p2p client, but unfortunately this traffic is going
I posted a while back about an issue I was having. I have an FTP server on the
DMZ that is a mirror server for some FOS projects.
I want this traffic set to low priority, and limited to a certain rate. I
enabled the penalty IP in the traffic shaping wizard. This worked fine so long
as the
Hello,
We have servers on our SHARED_DMZ interface and we would like to give
priority to http requests to those servers from our web server over all
other traffic. The bandwidth usage is tiny, a few kbits every few
minutes. These series of http requests execute within 15 -20 seconds
during
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM, JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
We have servers on our SHARED_DMZ interface and we would like to give
priority to http requests to those servers from our web server over all
other traffic. The bandwidth usage is tiny, a few kbits every few minutes.
These
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
Ok--
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I am wondering if something
obvious has perhaps been overlooked here.
It has been said several times by the pfSense folks that traffic shaping
combined with bridging doesn't work. However, there are folks claiming
to be using it with success.
I've
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I am wondering if something
obvious has perhaps been overlooked here.
It has been said several times by the pfSense folks
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it's a code thing (what isn't ;) .. I was trying to gain some
technical insight as to why it doesn't function, and why it works with
NAT as opposed to a bridge. From my (I'm sure, oversimplified)
impression, if packets are passing
Message-
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:28 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it's a code thing (what isn't ;) .. I was trying to gain
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mean the traffic shaper *wizard*, I'm talking about the traffic
shaper itself. (I can config the rules myself if that means it will
function on bridged connections)
I know what you're asking. Since the wizard is the supported method
for us (and a couple of customers).
Thanks for the clarification.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:31 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED
Supposing that each wan has the same throughput, I was just thinking
that instead of doing TS on every WAN by using a m0n0wall box,
perhaps putting another pfsense (no firewall mode) with TS enabled,
in the middle between our LAN and the first multiwan pfsense,
wouldn't do the job?
I see
Greetings list,
I remember reading something on the list a few weeks ago to the effect that
enabling traffic shaping on a load balanced setup causes all sorts of
problems.
I gave it a try myself this evening briefly, and although it appeared things
were being dropped into the correct queues,
Hi,
As the recent discussion in the forum shows, there is interest in a new traffic
shaper.
From the discussion I can see that everybody wants something different from
the traffic shaper. :-)
Wishes include:
- transparent traffic shaping
- QOS
- shaping on all interfaces
- shaping traffic
What are you talking about? We are merely raising money for a
transparent bridge shaper. Please cut this FUD out.
Scott
On 11/8/06, Christian Krützfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As the recent discussion in the forum shows, there is interest in a new traffic
shaper.
From the
I haven't yet chimed in too much on this thread. When I do, I'll
probably close the thread and start a new one that I can update the
first message in with what I'm planning on doing and what's impossible
and who has made pledges against the bounty.
For the record, the bounty was started for
Hi All,
Have a PFSense BETA4 box running here, working great normally apart from
the bw sharing.
2 of us can be happily gaming playing world of warcraft, but if someone
else comes along and does some heavy web browsing, or even downloading a
file on a single http stream, then the games lag
On 6/6/06, Jack Pivac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Have a PFSense BETA4 box running here, working great normally apart from
the bw sharing.
2 of us can be happily gaming playing world of warcraft, but if someone
else comes along and does some heavy web browsing, or even downloading a
file
On 6/6/06, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am running the LiveCD on a machine with no Hard Drive, how do I
upgrade to the latest release? (Maybe I'm a dork-- I glanced at the
FAQ but it didn't jump out at me)
Is there a way to integrate the updates into the livecd, and then I
can
On 6/6/06, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am running the LiveCD on a machine with no Hard Drive, how do I
upgrade to the latest release? (Maybe I'm a dork-- I glanced at the
FAQ but it didn't jump out at me)
Is there a way to integrate the updates into the livecd, and then I
On 6/6/06, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there instructions on how to accomplish this somewhere?
Or will RELENG_1-SNAPSHOT-05-05-2006/pfSense.iso.gz have what I need?
http://wiki.pfsense.com/wikka.php?wakka=DeveloperBootStrapApfSenseDevelopersISOInstallation
on 07/06/06 12:15 Scott Ullrich said the following:
On 6/6/06, Jack Pivac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Have a PFSense BETA4 box running here, working great normally apart from
the bw sharing.
2 of us can be happily gaming playing world of warcraft, but if someone
else comes along and
1 Mbit should be fine on the minimum spec box - a pentium with 128 Mb ram.
More is good of course.
-Original Message-
From: Jack Pivac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2006 1:25 p.m.
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping / prioritisation
It means exactly what it is saying.Traffic shaping is not
supported on that card.
On 5/26/06, Michael Eales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ethernet card is the Compaq Netelligent Dual 10/100 ethernet (Spares Number:
242560-001)
Pfsense is using the tl -- Texas Instruments ThunderLAN Ethernet
Hello on this screen: Peer to Peer networking at :Enable/Disable specific P2P protocols Does putting a check next to an item Enable or Disable the item.thanksRob
checking an item sends that kind of traffic to low priority.
Holger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Robert Fantini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. Februar 2006 17:59
An: pfSense Support
Betreff: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to peer networking
screen
2006 17:59
An: pfSense Support
Betreff: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to peer
networking screen
Hello
on this screen: Peer to Peer networking
at :Enable/Disable specific P2P protocols
Does putting a check next to an item Enable or Disable the item.
thanks
Rob
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Robert Fantini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. Februar 2006 17:59
An: pfSense Support
Betreff: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to peer
networking screen
Hello
on this screen: Peer to Peer networking
Robert Fantini wrote:
Thanks.
btw, what does the 'AW:' mean in the reply subject?
It means aw, shucks, I'm using Outlook and it even translates my headers.
SCNR.
cu,
Rainer
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@pfsense.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to
peernetworking screen
Robert Fantini wrote:
Thanks.
btw, what does the 'AW:' mean in the reply subject?
It means aw, shucks, I'm using Outlook and it even
translates my headers.
SCNR.
cu
Ok, did some changes. Now my german contacts get RE's too but I guess that
should be no problem ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Holger Bauer
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:57 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: AW: AW: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: AW: AW: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to
peernetworking screen
Corporate decision, can't do anything against it ;-)
and by the way, there are not many alternatives that work
well together with blackberrys :-/
Holger
, February 05, 2006 7:04 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: AW: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to
peernetworking screen
I really wouldnt worry about it honestly.
On 2/5/06, Holger Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, did some changes. Now my german contacts get RE's
is complaining.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 7:04 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: AW: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping question, peer to
peernetworking screen
I really wouldnt worry about it honestly.
On 2
Just upgraded to 0.90 and traffic shaping seems to be broken.
Even after rerunning the wizard I get:
# pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
bandwidth for qWANRoot higher than interface
/tmp/rules.debug:17: errors in queue definition
parent qWANRoot not found for qWANdef
/tmp/rules.debug:18: errors in queue
At 03:32 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote:
Just upgraded to 0.90 and traffic shaping seems to be broken.
Even after rerunning the wizard I get:
# pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
bandwidth for qWANRoot higher than interface
/tmp/rules.debug:17: errors in queue definition
parent qWANRoot not found for qWANdef
At 03:41 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I am up to date on all MFC's. Did I miss one?
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/chngview?cn=7245
fixed the problem where the shaper vaporizes the BW settings in the GUI.
-
Although...
# pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
bandwidth for qWANRoot higher than interface
Tells me that ummm, the bandwidth Peter told the system is more than
the interfaces bandwidth. Not much I can do to control that.
However, I did just make some changes to the shaper for .90 (I assume
the MFCs
At 03:46 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote:
Which appears to have been MFC'd at:
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/chngview?cn=7254
So it sounds like the problem is not fixed entirely?
no, that's different. his errors referred to the BW being higher
than the iface BW, which implies it does know it?
On 10/31/05, Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, that's different. his errors referred to the BW being higher
than the iface BW, which implies it does know it?
Which means that he needs to set the bandwidth correctly in WAN and
LAN I would guess.
Scott
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well... You obviously could have checked that and printed the error
during wizard run.
Patches accepted!
Scott
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:20 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
A
Why not to set it to 1000Mbit ? Seriously If you're looking for
something fail safe it could be fails safe.
this is not ever going to happen unless there is something
misdefined. very few people need to shape more than
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:04 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
Well... You obviously could have checked that and printed the error
during wizard run.
dude, these guys are working their butts off, a little more civility
would be
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:20 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
A
Why not to set it to 1000Mbit ? Seriously If you're looking for
something fail safe it could be fails safe.
Just like your very well thought out default deny? I'll put that
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 17:14 -0600, Bill Marquette wrote:
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact it is not production ready as you put it makes me cautious -
this is why I go in bridging mode as this way I can bypass firewall
physically by switching couple of cables
-
From: Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
Nope.
On 10/26/05, Mojo Jojo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doh!
No better way to do this than
Fixed.
update_file.sh /usr/local/www/system_advanced.php
and re-run shaper wizard or add:
schedulertypehfsc/schedulertype
to shaper tag in /conf/config.xml and reboot.
--Bill
On 10/29/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I tried to enable device pooling in advanced options (the
On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 23:05 -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
Fixed.
update_file.sh /usr/local/www/system_advanced.php
and re-run shaper wizard or add:
schedulertypehfsc/schedulertype
to shaper tag in /conf/config.xml and reboot.
Thanks. I actually simply rerun traffic shaper.
Anyway this
On 10/29/05, Peter Zaitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 23:05 -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
Fixed.
update_file.sh /usr/local/www/system_advanced.php
and re-run shaper wizard or add:
schedulertypehfsc/schedulertype
to shaper tag in /conf/config.xml and reboot.
On 10/25/05, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not likely. This should be a ticket. If someone can open a ticket I
can look at easily unsetting the shaper at the end of the wizard of no
options where checked.
Naw, we don't want to unset the shaper if nothing was selected, we
just want
Here is my setup:
WRAP
128 mb CF Card
First install 0.864 then upgraded via the web GUI to 0.892 WRAP.
Currently using WAN/LAN only, OPT1 is not doing anything.
This is a home setup using a DSL connection with PPPOE.
All is well until I turn on traffic shaping and run the wizard, then my
At 02:31 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Here is my setup:
WRAP
128 mb CF Card
First install 0.864 then upgraded via the web GUI to 0.892 WRAP.
Currently using WAN/LAN only, OPT1 is not doing anything.
This is a home setup using a DSL connection with PPPOE.
All is well until I turn on traffic
used then it's allocated
back to data etc. At least this is the way I understand it..
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL
It guarantees that his entire line could be used for VOIP if needed.
From my understanding of the shaper (until it was recently changed)
was that you can dedicate all the bandwidth you want and if it's not
using it other queues would borrow from it. It appears that this
behavior has changed.
On 10/26/05, Mojo Jojo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably don't but I do testing sometimes with multiple lines back to my
SoftSwitch at the office and don't want to yank it down to 100k or so and
have problems.
Either way the bandwidth here is only suppose to be reserved for the VOIP if
the
At 02:48 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
On 10/26/05, Mojo Jojo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably don't but I do testing sometimes with multiple lines back to my
SoftSwitch at the office and don't want to yank it down to 100k or so and
have problems.
Either way the bandwidth here is only
Also, I tried lower the guarantee to 256k just in case this part of the
problem.
No joy, same issue..
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping
At 02:54 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Also, I tried lower the guarantee to 256k just in case this part of
the problem.
No joy, same issue..
now *that* is really weird. can you post your rules and queues?
-
To unsubscribe,
PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 02:54 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Also, I tried lower the guarantee to 256k just in case this part of the
problem
setup with just
the shaper stuff I mentioned. I don't even have any firewall rules or
anything else really in place.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support
At 02:58 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Sure, what would be the easiest way to do this?
Get a shell on your box and do:
pfctl -sq
pftcl -sr
I have nothing more than I mentioned before.. Plain vanilla setup
with just the shaper stuff I mentioned. I don't even have any
firewall rules or anything
: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 02:54 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Also, I tried lower the guarantee to 256k just in case
At 03:00 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
I think this is what you want:
- shaper
schedulertypehfsc/schedulertype
- queue
ewww, no thanks. reading raw xml is not fun. as scott said, go to
/tmp and post rules.debug (removing IP addresses etc if you're
worried about security.,,)
all label Default block all just to be sure.
- Original Message -
From: Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
Sending
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if you manually type:
pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
any errors?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if you manually
type:
pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
any errors
: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if you manually
type:
pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
any errors?
-
To unsubscribe
At 03:12 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Sorry...
I have it turned off at the moment because it kills my connection speed :)
I guess I have to turn it back on so the info will show up in this file?
yes :)
-
To unsubscribe,
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if you manually
type:
pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
any errors?
Try this:
###
# System Aliases
lan = { sis0 }
wan = { ng0 }
pptp = { ng1 ng2 ng3 ng4 ng5 ng6 ng7 ng8 ng9 ng10 ng11 ng12 ng13 ng14 }
pppoe = { ng1 ng2 ng3
At 03:15 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if you
manually type:
pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
any errors?
Try this:
###
# System Aliases
lan = { sis0 }
wan = { ng0 }
pptp = { ng1 ng2 ng3 ng4 ng5 ng6 ng7 ng8 ng9 ng10 ng11 ng12
: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if
you manually
type:
pfctl -f /tmp/rules.debug
any errors
]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 03:15 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
this is really odd. no queue stuff at all? what happens if you manually
type:
pfctl -f /tmp
At 03:29 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
try putting manual bandwidth for WAN and LAN in the gui and see if that helps.
You mean under InterfacesWAN and InterfacesLAN?
yes.
Are you sure you get no errors when loading this?
Sorry, when loading what?
what happens if you manually type:
pfctl
?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 03:29 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
try putting manual
At 03:34 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
After setting the LAN interface to 100 mb, the screen came back OK
except I saw this at the very bottom of the screen:
ifconfig: not found Warning: unlink(/var/run/lan.conf.dirty): No
such file or directory in /usr/local/www/interfaces_lan.php on line 283
.
I will run the commands you suggested and reply soon.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 03:37 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
try putting manual bandwidth for WAN and LAN in the gui and see if
that helps.
You mean under InterfacesWAN and InterfacesLAN?
yes.
OK, I set my WAN to 10mb and my LAN to 100mb. I then turned traffic
shaper back on and did a speed test and no joy, same
Message -
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 03:34 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
After setting the LAN interface to 100 mb
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 03:29 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
try putting manual bandwidth for WAN and LAN in the gui and see if that
helps.
You mean under InterfacesWAN
did you turn shaper back off? please turn it on and add the
following two lines before the queue directives (by editing /tmp/rules.debug)
altq on fxp1 hfsc bandwidth 10Mb queue { qWANRoot }
altq on vlan0 hfsc bandwidth 10Mb queue { qLANRoot }
NOTE: change fxp1 to your wan interface and
also post results of 'pfctl -sq'
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 03:50 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Yes I turned it back off, I have to leave it off or my speed is miserable :)
i understand your pain, but no test results with shaping off will be
meaningful.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Message -
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
At 03:50 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Yes I turned it back off, I have to leave
-
From: Dan Swartzendruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping, killing my DSL link speed to
less than 100k
did you turn shaper back off? please turn it on and add the following two
lines before
At 03:54 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
Here is the file after turning shaping back on and before making the
changes you requested.
Working on the changes now.
Todd
-
# System Aliases
lan = { sis0 }
wan = { ng0 }
pptp = { ng1 ng2 ng3 ng4 ng5 ng6 ng7 ng8 ng9 ng10 ng11 ng12 ng13
At 03:56 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
After turning the shaper back on, I do have this already in the file:
altq on sis1 hfsc bandwidth 10Mb queue { qWANRoot }
altq on sis0 hfsc bandwidth 100Mb queue { qLANRoot }
Do you want me to still replace this with yours? Seems to be the
same basically..
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
