Re: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2.2 CPU Division by zero error in index.php

2009-02-28 Thread Tortise
Hi ChrisI get:$ sysctl -n kern.cp_time 8564 1243 9535 4621 326700 I rebooted and initially it seemed fine, however it has recurred now as: Warning: Division by zero in /usr/local/www/includes/functions.inc.php on line 67 0%I have been changing the DHCP server static assignments if that helps at

Re: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2.2 CPU Division by zero error in index.php

2009-02-28 Thread Chris Buechler
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tortise wrote: > Hi > > In the index.php page CPU usage value I am getting: > > Warning: Division by zero in /usr/local/www/includes/functions.inc.php on > line 66 0% > > This is with the embedded image on a CF, Pentium 400, 756M RAM. > Run this from Diagnostics

[pfSense-discussion] 1.2.2 CPU Division by zero error in index.php

2009-02-28 Thread Tortise
Hi In the index.php page CPU usage value I am getting: Warning: Division by zero in /usr/local/www/includes/functions.inc.php on line 66 0% This is with the embedded image on a CF, Pentium 400, 756M RAM. If I can assist further please let me know. Kind regards David

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread Adrian Wenzel
My apologies, I meant Network layer, not Transport. Sheesh. Serves me right for spamming the list with general info (as I spam it again with my correction ;) So there 4 bits in the 2nd octet, 8 bits in the 3rd octet, and 8 bits in the 4th octet that are valid for use as IPs on the "local"

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread Adrian Wenzel
Hello, I'm glad you've made some progress. I'd like to help explain private subnets, and since I don't know how much you already know, please don't be offended! (I realize at this point I'm not helping you accomplish your task, but just trying to helpful in general.) There are three subn

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread RB
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:53, Tortise wrote: > I have since tried configuring as: > LAN1: 10.aaa.bbb.ccc/8 > LAN2: 10.(aaa+1).bbb.ccc/9 > > I presume I have still got it wrong. Yes. Any /9 is still a subset of a /8 with the same prefix, and unless you really know what you're doing will always c

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread Tortise
I think I've moved this on some. What I did was avoid the subnet issues which I was clearly running into (and not fully understanding), I opted to use a 172.10.x.x/16 private range for the 2nd LAN. I entered the rules as per DarkFoon (Thank you) Using the rules as suggested are preventing LAN2 ac

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread Tortise
Apologies for the repeat post, ISP email problem seemed to have lost it, then later on spat it out (Not sure if you guys want yet another email to explain!?) Kind regards David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread DarkFoon
The rules are the easy part. I had to do a similar thing for a pfSense box that had 4 interfaces. I'm just going to share my advice now, but you'll need to get the subnetting figured out before you can add these rules. One the LAN2 interface, create a block rule that goes at the very top of the ru

Re: [pfSense-discussion] WAN LAN1 and LAN2 (OPT1)

2009-02-28 Thread Tortise
Hi Adrian Thank you so much for your response. I think those numbers do have something to do with it, as when I enable OPT1 I loose the webserver's access and have to reset to a default and start over (I hate that!) I have since tried configuring as: LAN1: 10.aaa.bbb.ccc/8 LAN2: 10.(aaa+1)