I didn't really think of thin clients.
I guess I am just thinking ahead, and really wanting to have headroom with power and resources.

I host my own datacenter in the basement, so I have ProLiant servers (16GB RAM each) running at all times. The extra 50 Watts isn't that much of a deal. I heard of a larger PC only using 50 Watts at load.

I just want to test pfSense, and remove my router I have now. The router is ISP lent, and it's extremely slow and often reboots.
But, I am keeping in mind that I do not want a fan running in the background which would usually be loud on these desktop PCs.

I'll definitely check that out, and feel so much better that someone said my idea might be overkill. Now I am confident that I can handle the bandwidth.

@foetus:

Care to specify what 2358 board/setup you are running Gonzopancho?

Not yet.  :-)

Sent PB.

@viggen:

Lan INT is set to NONE  :-[

I would really appreciate a teamviewer session when do you have time ?

Regards Johan
[/quote]

Haha we manufacture beer equipment and most of the time it is seasonal so i get slow periods so I can do pet projects. Next I need to finish the rack for my house, then I want to do a nas. Then Redo our machine here at the office to be rack mounted.

Hello, is this card supported under pfSense?
http://ark.intel.com/products/49187/Intel-Gigabit-ET2-Quad-Port-Server-Adapter
It's based on Intel 82576.
I'm asking because we had serious problems under standard Linux kernel.. we had to replace driver to manufacturer's version..
But it was long time ago (2012 or something). I belive same could happen for pfSense - driver fault.

Because of this thread I want You ask:
is it possible to create single LAG/Team/PortChannel over 2 stacked Cisco switches (2 ports per switch, true stack) and use it to provide multiple VLAN channels (eg. Internet traffic, Management, LAN traffic, guest traffic..)?
This will increase availability and overall throughput for the router.
We managed to push over 370MB/s from this card.. but it could be more.

Did someone deployed such config?

Here is my review of the hardware  :D

some pics of the machine (sorry, the pics are huge !!!  but are in quite good quality)

Front with a hard drive for size comparison
Back
Close up to the back connectors
Interior
Length comparision with a "standard" switch length

come with :

rails to put it in a rack shelf (screws included) screws to fix it many different racks power cord

NOTE : it require a minimum of 18 inches to put it in a rack without the rails with everything connected. If you use those tiny "wall rack", pay attention to that !!
NOTE 2 : Intel AMT KVM remote control is only available with the XEON Vpro processor on others model (mine is a i3 so cannot test it yet)

i don't have a photos with my hard drive "temporary" setup inserted
despite the fact that it require a OEM rack to install a hard drive, it is not a reeeaaaly big issue since ther are some way to put it in. also, the machine is on a steady rack so even if the HDD is not completely fixed, it is ok to have it loose until aftermarket do his job (china copy of the HDD caddy  ;) )

however, it require a special cable to connect the power to the motherboard (a square 4 pin connector) so no RAID test for the moment. I'm till trying to find something that can replace that but maybe it is good to wait for some china copy.

well,  having all that said, i came with the 38% installation issue which many others users had on other setup.
Had to disable all CPU option except the VT which must be put at "enabled" then put them all on after install and all is good.

i have use it a bit and it seem pretty strong (have VOIP, VLANs, QoS, NAT and rules setup). The only thing that i miss is the Intel AMT KVM remote control function which is not present since it require a Xeon Vpro processor to work. Would be great to be able to remote control the RS140 OFF the OS with a i3.

For now, here is the PROS/CONS, other facts and temporary price tag :

PROS :
handy 1u setup
come with rails and everything required to fix it on a rack
aggressive price vs other 1u server !
only require 18 inch length in a rack
4 Gb ram included in the most basic model
come with 3 ethernet ports all seen
maybe more to come …

CONS :
require OEM HDD caddy (no china copy or spare available on aftermarket yet)
require OEM SATA/POWER cable for HDD (no china copy or spare available on aftermarket yet)
Intel AMT KVM only work with Xeon Processor (which raise up the price tag)
maybe more to come ...

Other facts :
only 2 HDD in the 3.5 HDD version
only 4 HDD in the 2.5 version
1x PCI-E x8 available
4x USB 3 at the back (not usable yet in the most recent release of PfSense)

Price Tag :
RS140 i3 4Gb DDR3 Ram 3.5 HDD version : $549 (+ shipping)
Western Digital 250Gb Enterprise Storage : +-$90 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0AJ1NG7866)

Total : +- $639 (+ shipping)

NOTE : as per experience, i put a Western Digital 250Gb Enterprise Storage for their reliability and price ! Even with squid, 250Gb should be fairly enougth for many setup. Also, i don't put an SSD since i plan to use some extensive HDD read/writes packages which can kill a SSD someday.
NOTE2 : since shipping vary most of the time, i don't put it in the price tag

To come : some performance test and and news !

Just a FYI on this :

These boards (S5000PSL) appear to be buggy in several ways. I may go chuck these servers in the river.

–- wont run pfSence reliably on bare metal.
System burn in on-bench is fine, sits and burns with no issues (even with me pounding on it w/iperf). But, when they are plugged into my network, they last anywhere from 2-4 days before they start going south, and hard rebooting.

--- Entire system hard reboots under ESXi5 after a few days (running only a single pfSense virt. machine)
--- Entire system hard reboots under ESXi4.1 (never even made it past the pfSense config restore...)

I have had the same behavior on two completely separate machines.
My opinion....... stay away from the S5000PSL boards.

The NIC is quite new, so you should keep that in mind when finding a livecd. I know CentOS version >= 6.5 should support the NIC.
Source: http://www.servethehome.com/centos-6-5-released/

You should also check the IPMI management webpage as priller mentioned.

Edit: well, not that new, but new enough.

bump?

Thanks for those useful information :)
As I stated, I will use this system purely (at least in the begginning) for Firewall Throughput, so pf will be mostly used.
So pf will improve in multithreading when 2.2 will be released so definitely I will have to think about multicore setup.
I had to setup multiple pfSense systems in the past, but always with lower throughput requirement, around 100-200 Mbps, so nothing difficult to size. But setup of a Gigabit capability is another challenge.
In that case, I will rethink twice before using a firebox system.
I think I will more likely setup a multicore Mini-ITX system with additional PCIe 4-port Intel Gigabit NIC to match my needs.

Thanks again :D

Both can run VLANs but the Intel almost certainly offer better hardware tagging.
The newer Realtek NICs aren't that bad but I'd always choose Intel unless the price difference was huge.

Steve

Hmm, interesting. I wonder if the fractional ping values could be an issue here. Glad your sorted anyway.  :)

Steve

Stephen your the man thank you

but can i install it on a nano (RO) version of pfsense or should i buy a mSATA card and install  the full version of pfsense?

EDIT: i installed it successfully on my pfsense machine so i answered that question myself and it works fine

No firm date for 2.2 yet, BETA should be happening Really Soon Now.

Upgrading from 2.1 (or any older release) to 2.2 will be supported.

ya in the initial pfsense setup it also shows em0 to em3…dont you think this issue is already solved on 2.2 snapshot. I am already running the 2.2 on my mSATA and things are working for 5 hrs now..

I've got a spare server I plan to use that is already running pfsense as my firewall.

My question is what PCI card is needed so that I can plug my analog line in and do the trunking on pfsense.

Having the same CPU rising behaviour on our PCEngine ALIX with Nano Intall (2.1.4 stable).

In France, we experiment loads of trouble over xDSL connections. Mainly loss, caused even by a bad synchro or by a user that get the line to saturate because of big downloads / uploads.
This causes pf to experience a hight CPU load when GW is considered as offline by PF.

We did the trick of gateway polling in "Routing->Gateways->Edit gateway" :

- Advanced->Packet Loss Thresholds = 20% / 40% (default 10% / 20%)
  - Probe Interval = 5s (default = 1s)
  - Down = 60s (default = 10s)

For what we experienced so far with those values is a better responsivness of PHP UI, and RRD graph shows a fall of CPU load. Still having those settings for test for few hours on PF that are experimenting DSL sync difficulties.

It looks good so far, and looks like increasing apinger tests and faillure decision, gives the ALIX more time to execute what it has to execute, and CPU graph falls dramatically (so far…).

Sounds to be a good and quick idea to play with the values above.

You should be good for a few years with that though. Unless everyone's gone to 10Gig WAN by 2016! I can't see that happening.  ;)
The i350 card you linked to is one of the incredibly cheap type coming out of China. If you buy those direct from Intel they are a lot more expensive. Others here have used them though and had no complaints:
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=74158.0

Not all reviews are favourable though:
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=74180.msg408756#msg408756

Steve