Yes, that could be the speed you are limited to by the line anyway. You'd have to connect a client directly, bypass pfSense and retest, to know.

@bootable said in 23.01 -> 23.05 - ZXIC,Incorporated ZXIC Mobile Boardband STOP to WORK: it stabilized and the OS found again as ue0, and as ue0 works as emu of an ethernet port, If you set it up as shown above, you set up at first the PPP and then you create an interface like an ethernet port for example like you LAN port. And then you should create a Gateway group and set it up there again, as fallback, only gateway or for balancing with failover. so the DHCP internal of the dongle gives an IP to pfSense and not have the need to dial up as PPP. Would be the normal way as it is acting like an USB device (what it is). Here are two very well know links for installing modems in pfSense. Installing LTE modem LTE trouble shooting

Unlikely you will remove that entirely with a VM like that. I agree you almost certainly won't be able to detect it in reality.

@stephenw10 unfortunately switching the interfaces also don’t work. Tomorrow I’ll do some tests with the nuc on windows to see if it wants send out dhcp so i see if it is going to be a RMA or not :)

@stephenw10 said in DYI Power Button for PC Engines APU: If it's just an ACPI power button no script is required. It will already trigger a system shutdown. Cool thank you for that information!

Intel QuickAssist Technology Treiber für FreeBSD – HW Version 1.7 3.12.0-00004 latest version

@n8lbv said in J1900 performance: Usually around 900mbps. But counting then on top of that the TCP overhead you will still going over 900 MBit/s, something like 920 - 940 MBit/s, so it is nearly a full GBit/s.

@jimp Just installed yesterday's snapshot and all is well. Thanks!

I use an older Dell 3020 in my home network. 2 family members work from home. I have a Dell 390 that works great too except it can’t handle i7’s. I wanted something with enough PCI-e slots I didn’t have to run a switch right away.

@impovich said in IQA89601G1P5 QAT not working: qat_ocf0: <QAT engine> qat_ocf0: no QAT IRQ instances available device_attach: qat_ocf0 attach returned 6 That is expected if there is simply no device present. or none with a driver attached. And that appears to be the case here: none0@pci0:0:16:0: class=0x0b4000 rev=0x04 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x37c9 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0x0000 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' device = 'C62x Chipset QuickAssist Technology Virtual Function' class = processor It looks like the FreeBSD driver simply doesn't support the virtual devices yet: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14173 Though looking at the code it does appear to be listed. https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/sys/dev/qat/include/common/adf_accel_devices.h#L12 That is in the 23.01 code so you might expect it to at least try to attach.

@stephenw10 I understand, but the cpu can easily handle throughput.

No updates AFAIK. There was a recent thread about OpenWRT on the T70 over on their forum that confirmed the e1000 patch to allow switch access is not present there either. Velocloud had patched it them selves and not upstreamed it. Though there's a good chance such a patch would not be accepted upstream anyway. Steve

OpenVPN would get a bump from IIMB in Plus 23.05 (if you can use DCO), as would IPsec and WireGuard. But on a CPU that old it's difficult to speculate about how much faster it might be.

Most DAC cables are expected to work in the 8200. It's specifically RJ-45 SFP modules that are not supported; though some do work it's unpredictable. Generally though if you can use fiber do so. Steve

@riahc8 16GB officially but reports of 32GB running on the N5105 along with info on bios updates can be found here: ServeTheHome - JasperLake I'm still waiting on the 2 port N100 they promised by end of May.

Yes, looks like it should be supported in 198.00_1.

@stephenw10 Hey, an assumption turned out right! My journey into full pfSense nirvana continues.

@tman222 said in SFP28 and SFP+ Optics Compatibility: Thanks @keyser and @Dobby_ for the explanations, I really appreciate it. If the goal is to achieve a 10Gbit link between SFP28 on one side and SFP+ on the other, do you think I would have better luck trying an SFP+ transceiver in the SFP28 cage, or going with a dual rate 10/25Gbit SFP28 receiver instead, assuming that the underlying controller on the SFP28 side supports 10Gbit operation? Thanks again. It should be even steven as the only “limiting” factor in that setup is if the SFP28 Cageowner OS supports the tranceiver you intend to use (either the 10/25 SFP28 or the 10G SFP+). The cage specifications supports both operational scenarios from a hardware perspective.

@stephenw10 This made all the difference from completely unusable beside crashing and rebooting to being usable. And so far from all testing reliable. Not as fast as Intel NICs but for 100-200mbps.. (OpenVPN throughput) perfect. I will be getting an intel i3 NUC with Intel nic this weekend to test. Nat speed: 400-500mbps. I've been stressing it for 10 hours moving huge file trasfers in both directions and doing http speedtests. both over openVPN and 1Gbps NAT. Along with "regular" Internet usage. -Steve

@spossis83 Qnap QSW-1105-5T 5 Port 2,5 Gbps Auto Negotiation (2,5 G/1 G/100 M) Unmanaged Switch for around ~89 € (Amazon.de) NETGEAR MS305 5 Port Switch Multi-Gigabit Ethernet (5X 1G/2,5G) Unmanaged Switch for around ~150 € (Amazon.de) NETGEAR MS105 5 Port Multi-Gigabit 2,5G Ethernet Unmanaged Switch for around ~165 € (Galaxus.de) All three are unmanaged, with 5x 2.5 GBit/s ports and from under 100 € to under 200 € available.