At 04:10 PM 10/31/2005, you 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 appreciated, i'm sure.
Sorry. I did not meant to offend anyone. It is just my answer to
"nothing can be done" point.
I have limited time to spend on pfSense - I need to make it up and
running. I've already found workarounds for most of my problems.
I could just keep my findings for myself or I could have them reported
with some fix ideas suggested.
I know providing the patch is best of all but I currently can't do it -
I still however would like to help making pfsense better - which is what
i think i'm doing by reporting the problems :)
>
> >Also I see the interface speed is assumed 10Mbits if it is not set...
> >which is pretty rough guess these days :)
>
> that was my suggestion. it was a fail-safe in case of no valid BW at
> all, since that causes bad rules that don't load.
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 10mb/sec of traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
