Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Intel NIC I-226V

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    78 Posts 3 Posters 12.0k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • bmeeksB
      bmeeks @Antibiotic
      last edited by bmeeks

      @Antibiotic said in Intel NIC I-226V:

      @bmeeks
      Oh ok, out from home users in-line mode, i guess)))

      To be perfectly honest, Suricata has very limited usefulness at best in a home network. I am the creator of the package for pfSense, and I don't run it in my home network. I have not run an IDS/IPS in my home network for the last several years. And even when I did, it was only to collect some events in logs to aid me in debugging the package code or adding new features.

      Suricata cannot see into encrypted traffic, and 90% or more of typical network traffic now is encrypted (HTTPS, SMTPS, POP3S, IMAPS, DoT, DoH, TLS, etc.). Suricata is totally blind to the payloads of these encrypted packets.

      Much better security can be had by simply keeping internal hosts updated with the latest security hotfixes and running a good antivirus client on them along with just being careful what you click on as a user.

      A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • A
        Antibiotic @bmeeks
        last edited by

        @bmeeks I think also to uninstall of suricata at home and set Hardware Checksum Offloading ON back for traffic shaping!

        pfSense plus 24.11 on Topton mini PC
        CPU: Intel N100
        NIC: Intel i-226v 4 pcs
        RAM : 16 GB DDR5
        Disk: 128 GB NVMe
        Brgds, Archi

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          You don't need checksum off loading to run traffic shaping.

          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • A
            Antibiotic @stephenw10
            last edited by

            @stephenw10 Do you mean not required, but can still keep ON or mandatory to keep OFF for better result?

            pfSense plus 24.11 on Topton mini PC
            CPU: Intel N100
            NIC: Intel i-226v 4 pcs
            RAM : 16 GB DDR5
            Disk: 128 GB NVMe
            Brgds, Archi

            A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A
              Antibiotic @Antibiotic
              last edited by

              @Antibiotic Because have tested now with all 3 options on (Hardware Checksum Offloading, Hardware TCP Segmentation Offloading, Hardware Large Receive Offloading) AND RESULT IS A+ for bufferbloat.

              pfSense plus 24.11 on Topton mini PC
              CPU: Intel N100
              NIC: Intel i-226v 4 pcs
              RAM : 16 GB DDR5
              Disk: 128 GB NVMe
              Brgds, Archi

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by stephenw10

                I'm saying that hardware off-loading should make no difference to traffic shaping or buffer bloat.

                A 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • A
                  Antibiotic @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10 Ah well understood)))

                  pfSense plus 24.11 on Topton mini PC
                  CPU: Intel N100
                  NIC: Intel i-226v 4 pcs
                  RAM : 16 GB DDR5
                  Disk: 128 GB NVMe
                  Brgds, Archi

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • A
                    Antibiotic @stephenw10
                    last edited by

                    @stephenw10 What is more effective ALTQ Scheduler Types or Limiters? Like understood from pfesense docs, if NIC support ALTQ better use this insteed of limiters. But my NIC support ALTQ and anyway best result with limiters have?

                    pfSense plus 24.11 on Topton mini PC
                    CPU: Intel N100
                    NIC: Intel i-226v 4 pcs
                    RAM : 16 GB DDR5
                    Disk: 128 GB NVMe
                    Brgds, Archi

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • A
                      Antibiotic @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10 I', suspecting that this tests for bufferbloat online , like a marketing trick. If you use FQ-Codel , result is good. But lets say traffic shaping with ALTQ scheduler result is worse.

                      pfSense plus 24.11 on Topton mini PC
                      CPU: Intel N100
                      NIC: Intel i-226v 4 pcs
                      RAM : 16 GB DDR5
                      Disk: 128 GB NVMe
                      Brgds, Archi

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stephenw10S
                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                        last edited by

                        Either can work though if you want to address buffer bloat specifically I would use Limiters as shown here:
                        https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/codel-limiters.html

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.