My understanding is that allows one server to present storage from multiple ‘back end’ servers, thus still being a single point of failure, right?

Maybe, it could be separate shares on separate servers presented as a single ‘host’ by a Windows cluster, this would be more storage efficient than replication and the only single point of failure would be any given back end server that would only affect 1-2 shared folders rather than all of them, which might be acceptable. Or I could be way the hell off with my understanding of DFS…

Edit: Did a bit more research, it seems DFS does do a redundant namespace that can handle failover. That might actually be exactly what I need. Thanks!

To be fair, if someone made a blowjob machine that required an OS, it would probably be Linux. Just sayin.

I’d agree the OPNsense UI is probably more intuitive if you’ve never touched PFSense but I found the OPNsense UI difficult coming from many years of PF.

I’ve been using an R210ii with PFSense for like 8 years now. It’s been rock solid and only sips like 20 watts.