@stephenw10 probably, I'm not super knowledgeable on how this stuff works in the back end. It does make sense that its a driver limitation, or maybe bug? Either way its nice that autoselect works as it should. Can't wait to get my other cards in and top out my provisioned speed. I can see when running a speed test it maxes out my 1Gbe nic in my desktop 😂

Doesn't looks like that supports FreeBSD at all. No drivers. For example:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/144274/pfsense-with-cisco-c200-m2-and-cisco-n2xx-acpci01-10gbe

Steve

Small update. Bought 5019C-FL, installed xcp-ng, and pfsense. Having pfBlockerNg, nordvpn for some vlans and VPN server. Everything runs as expected. I'm overexcited with pfSense after dd-wrt:)

@nan0tech said in Confusion on driver for Nic:

Is there a way to force this card to load with the EM driver?

Nope.

But from your description of the problem I'm not sure it's a driver issue at all. Is it actually dropping the link or just dpinger restarting?

Steve

@stephenw10 yeah, it seems really related to the cable. If I use a USB-serial adapter with a serial-console cable it works as expected :-)

@stoltzy said in Shuttle DH110 slow network issues:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/mc8x8a/poor_speeds_in_shuttle_dh110/

BIOS update? Interesting.

I found another post (https://hardforum.com/threads/pfsense-2-5-new-configurations-for-igb-performance.2008210/#post-1044942639) and made some additional changes (only to the tunables as I'm not confident and knowledgeable enough to modify the loader.conf) which seemed to improve throughput, which one of these did the trick I have no idea but on my 200/20 speed I was previously getting around 90/12 I'm now achieving around 150/16 but I know that my device has previously been capable of 180/19 so I'll keep playing until I can improve the speed further but I'd be very grateful for any additional ideas/changes/tweaks etc...

@nicholfd To be fair it is perception. I had to compile some code for DoH on a Pi and it ran more than 30 minutes. Same compile on a VM on a gen4 i7 took less than 5 minutes. In my experience Arm CPUs are a little weak in computational work. That is to be expected, the chips are meant to run phones and not use much power.
Your RPi build is interesting and may be good for most home users. I am interested in finding out how fast it can go.

@jwj Thank you!

Yeah I still own a temperature controlled soldering iron and know how to use it. I just don’t trust myself with most SMT stuff, too small for my old clumsy big hands.

I remember my first home hard drive, a 20MB MFM Seagate. It seemed huge! Before then my first “home computer” was a Sinclair ZX81, followed by a C=64, and several programmable HP calculators.

Talking of RS-232, I still have a breakout box. I need to look up if the Brocade uses the same RJ-45 pin out as Cisco et al.

Happy days those were!

A Cisco pin-out works with almost everything but occasionally you find something weird.
It should work with the supplied cable. Though it's always possible the supplied cable is itself is bad since they are probably untested, at least by the appliance manufacturer.

If your terminal setup works with other devices, especially the same type of device, that seems like a hardware issue.

Steve

@stephenw10
Yes that seemed to work.
Rebooted router and modem.
That worked.
Thanks For your help, will test for awhile and get back to you:)

That's normally some BIOS setting or an ACPI error.

I could imagine a signage device being configured so you cannot shut it down.

Steve

It is working now, thanks. See the link I posted about my switch not passing packets...

I need multiple VLANS on LAN and WAN interface, but it is working fine now.

@nollipfsense yeah I thought about using a KVM I think I have one around here somewhere, only problem is the wiring closet is about 15m from my desk and I ‘m a bit short on space on my desk anyway.

On a related subject how much throughput do you get on the Mac Mini?

The first step would be to replicate it in FreeBSD. Then if that still looks wrong I would post about it in the FreeBSD forum to see if anyone else has hit. Then I'd probably ask there about reporting it but it would be done here: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/

Steve

That's an installer image though. And you only appear to have one drive connected. What are you expecting to install to?

You should install to the CF in something else and then move it across if you're doing that. Otherwise use a NanoBSD image. If you can find one.

Really you should retire that and get something from the last decade IMO.

Steve

I wanted to follow up on this thread from a couple years and share some updated 10Gbit performance statistics using the latest version of pfSense (2.5.0 at the time of this writing). Overall, I have to say that I'm quite impressed and seeing 10 - 25% increases in performance (packet throughput) compared to when I posted this back in 2018. The testing setup is essentially the same (i.e. the only change I have made hardware wise is switch out the 2 port Chelsio T520 with its bigger brother, the 4 port Chelsio T540):

Host 1: i7 4790K based machine with 32GB RAM, Intel X550 NIC running Debian Linux 10.8 Host 2: i5 7600 based machine with 16GB RAM, Intel X550 NIC, running Debian Linux 10.8 Switch: Ubiquiti ES-16-XG pfSense: Supermicro 5018D-F8NT server with 16GB RAM, and additional Chelsio T540-SO-CR SFP+ add-on card.

Host 1 and Host 2 are on separate network networks segments (let's call them VLAN 1 and VLAN 2), and VLAN 1 is allowed to talk to VLAN 2 across the firewall without restrictions. Snort is active on both VLAN 1 and VLAN 2.

Even with Snort enabled, I'm now seeing 1.3 - 1.5 million packets of throughput across the firewall when running a Flent RRUL test. The average is probably closer to 1.35 - 1.40 million packets. I like the Flent RRUL test because it is full duplex, i.e. tests upload and download at the same time (4 parallel RX streams and 4 parallel TX streams, tested for 60 seconds):

https://flent.org/tests.html#the-realtime-response-under-load-rrul-test

Flent RRUL Test Results:

Please ignore the avg ping values, these don't appear to be accurate latency calculations by the test.

One of the top test results:

avg median Ping (ms) ICMP : 7.14 4.53 ms Ping (ms) UDP BE : 545.44 4.05 ms Ping (ms) UDP BK : 516.01 5.16 ms Ping (ms) UDP EF : 743.00 2.83 ms Ping (ms) avg : 601.48 4.44 ms TCP download BE : 1714.08 1775.34 Mbits/s TCP download BK : 2416.47 2488.45 Mbits/s TCP download CS5 : 2377.02 2407.92 Mbits/s TCP download EF : 2289.63 2323.54 Mbits/s TCP download avg : 2199.30 2223.70 Mbits/s TCP download sum : 8797.20 8894.63 Mbits/s TCP totals : 17689.26 17899.85 Mbits/s TCP upload BE : 2318.72 2407.06 Mbits/s TCP upload BK : 1867.99 1952.64 Mbits/s TCP upload CS5 : 2375.49 2423.72 Mbits/s TCP upload EF : 2329.86 2427.93 Mbits/s TCP upload avg : 2223.01 2255.39 Mbits/s TCP upload sum : 8892.06 9019.27 Mbits/s

Closer to average:

avg median Ping (ms) ICMP : 3.02 1.79 ms Ping (ms) UDP BE : 693.13 2.92 ms Ping (ms) UDP BK : 693.84 2.49 ms Ping (ms) UDP EF : 701.94 2.65 ms Ping (ms) avg : 696.30 2.71 ms TCP download BE : 1371.36 1323.14 Mbits/s TCP download BK : 2508.64 2556.88 Mbits/s TCP download CS5 : 2356.60 2475.18 Mbits/s TCP download EF : 1318.73 1310.40 Mbits/s TCP download avg : 1888.83 1929.42 Mbits/s TCP download sum : 7555.33 7717.70 Mbits/s TCP totals : 16483.28 16708.92 Mbits/s TCP upload BE : 1882.59 2066.45 Mbits/s TCP upload BK : 2427.06 2475.99 Mbits/s TCP upload CS5 : 2195.50 2269.01 Mbits/s TCP upload EF : 2422.80 2523.43 Mbits/s TCP upload avg : 2231.99 2265.72 Mbits/s TCP upload sum : 8927.95 9062.89 Mbits/s

Overall, I'm very happy with these results and it shows me that there is a lot of life left in this Xeon-D hardware (purchased back in 2017), if / when multi-gigabit internet service is available.

@stephenw10 @bigsy

I think the speed is enough for me, i will consider buying or building new hardware.

Thanks for helping me sort this out!