Intel DN2800mt x64 2.0.3-2.1 bandwidth
-
Another nice bonus, with a computer directly tied into the cable modem i was pulling a solid 55.4Mbps, with this pfense on 2.1 it allows me to pull dhcp6 from modem and passes along to all machines. ran another speed test and picked up another 2Mb… so im happy ping dropped a couple around here locally but still solid 33ms midway across the country
-
Pulling that much bandwidth isn't something unique to pfsense. Even my cheapy linksys can do as high as 80 or 90. But doing anything big with the bandwidth like VPN does take something like pfsense.
-
Pulling that much bandwidth isn't something unique to pfsense. Even my cheapy linksys can do as high as 80 or 90. But doing anything big with the bandwidth like VPN does take something like pfsense.
I've messed around with linksys and dd-wrt tomato etc. yeah i can pull the bandwidth of 55 no problem on them.. but when it comes to ping their all over the place, or any heavy load.. they fall like a ton of bricks. i was even contemplating purchasing a netgear 4000 series, or maybe even an AC router. but they "ALL" have 128mg or less and the majority of them fall in the 32mb range. not so good if your trying to pull a p2p at full bandwidth.
-
Yeah - They have weak state tables and the CPUs are on the ragged edge of maxed out with a fast connection. And VPN… That maxes the CPU at only 5MB or so. Its much weaker than the pfsense if you are doing anything other than "speedtest.net"
-
I completely agree. Now I gotta make sure my coffee pot pulls its ip
-
Don't forget to check your sneakers…
-
No change there either.. this is what my loader.conf.local file looks like now.
kern.cam.boot_delay=10000
kern.em.nmbclusters="131072"
hw.em.num_queues=1
hw.em.fc_setting=1does this look right or am i going to have to do one for each for example.
*hw.em0.num_queues=1
hw.em1.num_queues=1I believe the number of queues setting has no effect on the flow control setting. I think if you want to set queues individually for each interface it would be done by hw.em.1.num_queues=1 rather than hw.em1.num.queues.
-
Ah, interesting result. Good to see you got the expected throughput in the end. Does it now peg one of the cores at 100%?
The interesting thing here is that usually, if you have speedstep enabled, the CPU shows higher usage since it's running slower on average. Yet yours showed less than 100% even when powerd was not enabled. Odd. :-
The majority of Atom users probably have desktop chips, DXXX. The netbook chips have far greater power saving features, I wonder if that's causing this? Anyway good to have a solution thanks to your persistence.Steve
-
-
I've seen +900Mbps through my DN2800MT as well.
Seems surprisingly high for an Atom board. You do anything special? It that actually through?
Steve
Nothing special, just a pretty much out-of-the-box install of 2.1. Powerd is enabled but is set to hiadaptive. On adaptive I had issues with the CPU throttling back and then not speeding back up when there was actually load. Testing was done with iperf (TCP) from the Thunderbolt Gig-E adapter on my rMBP on the LAN side to a Dell Precision T3500 on the WAN side. There were no packages installed and just a single firewall rule to allow the iperf traffic to pass through. CPU usage was high on a single core but not maxed out; I don't remember the exact number.
-
I've seen +900Mbps through my DN2800MT as well.
Seems surprisingly high for an Atom board. You do anything special? It that actually through?
Steve
Nothing special, just a pretty much out-of-the-box install of 2.1. Powerd is enabled but is set to hiadaptive. On adaptive I had issues with the CPU throttling back and then not speeding back up when there was actually load. Testing was done with iperf (TCP) from the Thunderbolt Gig-E adapter on my rMBP on the LAN side to a Dell Precision T3500 on the WAN side. There were no packages installed and just a single firewall rule to allow the iperf traffic to pass through. CPU usage was high on a single core but not maxed out; I don't remember the exact number.
Oh please don't tell me theres more bandwidth to be had. I'll have to restart the entire thread. LOL im at 600Mbps now, your saying your seeing 800+ what adaptor/s it only has a pci-e x1. I'm using a dual nic intel pro/1000 pt on a x1 ribbon cable with notched x1 slot to direct the x4 lane card to operate on x1 2.5Gbps lane.
-
I've seen +900Mbps through my DN2800MT as well.
Seems surprisingly high for an Atom board. You do anything special? It that actually through?
Steve
Nothing special, just a pretty much out-of-the-box install of 2.1. Powerd is enabled but is set to hiadaptive. On adaptive I had issues with the CPU throttling back and then not speeding back up when there was actually load. Testing was done with iperf (TCP) from the Thunderbolt Gig-E adapter on my rMBP on the LAN side to a Dell Precision T3500 on the WAN side. There were no packages installed and just a single firewall rule to allow the iperf traffic to pass through. CPU usage was high on a single core but not maxed out; I don't remember the exact number.
Oh please don't tell me theres more bandwidth to be had. I'll have to restart the entire thread. LOL im at 600Mbps now, your saying your seeing 800+ what adaptor/s it only has a pci-e x1. I'm using a dual nic intel pro/1000 pt on a x1 ribbon cable with notched x1 slot to direct the x4 lane card to operate on x1 2.5Gbps lane.
It's a quad-port i350. I used the angled riser and notched the slot to use the card.
-
You can get about 2 gigabit on that (4 bidirectional) realistically, although technically the specs will say 5 bi-directional.
Either way, PCIe x1 slot isn't any speed bump for anyone here. Its a good use of that port. Why they made that an x4 is beyond me,
but I use mine in graphics slot. -
You can get about 2 gigabit on that (4 bidirectional) realistically, although technically the specs will say 5 bi-directional.
Either way, PCIe x1 slot isn't any speed bump for anyone here. Its a good use of that port. Why they made that an x4 is beyond me,
but I use mine in graphics slot.The i350-T4 is a x4 card because at a 1.0 link, where many of these are used, a x1 link only does 250MB/s in each direction and you need 500MB/s to fully utilize all 4 ports.
-
Are 4 ports being tested simultaneously or just 1?
-
