Need advice on a pfsense box
-
http://www.pfsense.org/index.php@option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=51.html
Hardware Compatibility List
As pfSense 2.0.1 is based on FreeBSD 8.1, its hardware compatibility list is the same as FreeBSD's. The pfSense kernel includes all FreeBSD drivers.
Also here a guy runs freebsd on his haswell core i7-4770k cpu and socket 1150 mobo:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQyNDg
When you really think about it haswell is 6 months + old and ivybridge have been out for a years… id be shocked if pfsense did not work on them, people would go mad simply put!
It maybe wiser to repost a new question and ask anyone running pfsense on new intel haswell cpus though in case before buying!
The haswells are better I feel since they got 55watt and low power use making them even more ideal for 24/7 pfsense boxes, and they are faster and better and similar priced....
I think the real issues are the nics and realtek ones... sticking with intel nics seems best as you know.
Quite a few like the xeons, I guess since they are server class and always run 24/7, but really they are still pricey and hot. A cheaper haswell running with 55watts with onboard gpu sounds way better imo. Even I had a Q9300 quad + mobo running 24/7 for years and no issue. But I guess for pure stability an xeon is great.
I have considered going AMD A6-6400K 3.90GHz 65Watt. Its still 65watts, but its 4.1ghz dual core and supports AES and £60 only, the AES instructions will be handy for me since I use OpenVPN, but am still considering the same haswell cpu as yourself !
Other then that good luck with the build ill join very soon !
-
The haswells are better I feel since they got 55watt and low power use making them even more ideal for 24/7 pfsense boxes, and they are faster and better and similar priced….
Depends on which type of cpu,for example a pentium G2030T uses only 35W.
As for the Xeons i think they are for the more powerfull systems. But for now i think i will stay with the 3gen cpus.
-
[update]
Looks like i will have to go with Haswell since the 3gen pentium only supports DDR3-1066 memory.
-
Yeah 32watt is very low and good, 2.6ghz so not bad either.
Yeah the xeons would fair better for 24/7 use and more powerful, but if your looking for low noise/power, I like the haswell set ups.
- you can an onboard gpu, with xeon you need an gpu…
why would you need faster ram for your pfsense box ? not unless you got brought the ram already, even then is not the faster ram suppose to work backwards compatible...
-
why would you need faster ram for your pfsense box ? not unless you got brought the ram already, even then is not the faster ram suppose to work backwards compatible…
1066 is too slow, since i plan to run some packages that are heavy on ram + the store i'm buying from only has 2gb 1066 ram modules.
-
ouch on 2gig
Well when you get finalized with your build and hardware, let us know how the performance is :)
-
well i am deciding between these two builds
1. 1155
CPU: Intel Pentium G840 or Intel Core i3 2120
Mobo:
option1: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8H61MX_R20/
option2: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Z77A/
RAM: 2x4GB ddr3 1333
HDD: 2x WD RED NAS 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB
NIC: 3x pcie Intel PRO/10002. 1150
CPU: Intel Pentium G3420 2x3.20GHz
Mobo:
option1: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H81M-GL/index.us.asp
option2: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H87%20Pro4/
option3: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8B75V/
RAM: 8GB(2x4) ddr3 1600
HDD: 2x WD RED NAS 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB
NIC: 3x pcie Intel PRO/1000What do you think?
I've also been looking at HP ProLiant ML310 server. It's a bit more expencive but it has reliability, don't know if it supports pfsense…
-
I like setup 2 due to haswell, how comes such a massive hdd though ?
If your running it via virtualbox pfsense are you doubling it up as a download box or media box ?
I was planning on a 64gig hdd but many on here gone with an 8gig ssd just for their pfsense boxes.
-
I like setup 2 due to haswell, how comes such a massive hdd though ?
well i prefer WD HDDs and i chose the wd red because it's designed for 24/7 operation and 1tb is the smallest they got.
And didn't people have problems with SSDs because they started dying after a few months? -
Oh and another thing, is ECC ram important to have or can i stick with a non ECC-system?
-
ECC ram is good for reliability which is why its more recommended for server machines ie xeon cpus etc
However its more pricey and again only works on mobos for servers like x79 mobos or xeon socket mobos and similar.
If you look at some of the new socket 1150 mobos no mention of ECC support, so I guess they only take the normal Ram.
Yeah SSDs can die… any hdd can also. Your Nas drives are better suited to run 24/7 however I feel its total overkill for pfsense which takes what 1gig, people often suggest small 8gig or 30gig SSDs. Even a 64gig maybe overkill.
If your using pfsense packages though people do suggest more ram like 8gig since they soak up ram I hear.
I figured since you mentioned you were installing 2x2TB WD reds, you would be using it for other reasons other then pfsense.
I see pfsense system requirements is it takes 1gig hdd space anyhow so a 4tb is kinda overkill to the max.if am wrong someone would correct me however!
-
I figured since you mentioned you were installing 2x2TB WD reds, you would be using it for other reasons other then pfsense.
I see pfsense system requirements is it takes 1gig hdd space anyhow so a 4tb is kinda overkill to the max.
if am wrong someone would correct me however!well first of you got the size wrong it's 1TB not 2 :P, but the only reason why i chose those disks is because they are supposed to be for 24/7 operation, and like you said i don't need space but 1tb is the smallest from the red version even any other brad of HDDs don't go lower then 250GB (unless you mean ssd disks)
the reason why i said 2 is because i was thinking of setting them up in RAID.
but i have been thinking about getting the HP ProLiant ML310 server for the box, it would only cost a bit more. but i don't know if it supports pfsense and it has intel Vpro which i would rather stay away from.
-
Go for a 1155 system. i3 with 8GB is perfect.
-
yes on the 1tb, I still feel its total overkill for pfsense, more so with 2 x 1tb in raid and then installing a 1gig program on it.
If your desperate for nas class drives why not get this instead ?
http://www.storagereview.com/wd_red_25_1tb_hdd_review_wd10jfcx
Its smaller and more energy efficient and server/nas class.
But yeah I guess with raid setup you can enjoy it even if one dies you could mirror it, I get what you are trying to do and its still a good idea perhaps more costly though…
The hp servers are good, more so if you can get cash back offers on them and pick them up cheaply...
Still a good set of hardware is good and future proof. I don't think I can go with intel cpus their low end to mid end cpus don't support AES which is important to my pfsense build I have in mind, I need something future proof to work with VPNs
You could if your bb connection is not overall powerful try a test run on an old pc and see how it works out before leaping on am expensive purchase, just to get the feel and speed of it.....
-
The hp servers are good, more so if you can get cash back offers on them and pick them up cheaply…
Still a good set of hardware is good and future proof. I don't think I can go with intel cpus their low end to mid end cpus don't support AES which is important to my pfsense build I have in mind, I need something future proof to work with VPNs
well for the moment i think i will go with the haswell build any i3 CPUs or the hp server looks like a total overkill for what i need and i also imagine the server makes loud fan noise which could turn out to be anoying.
i just dont wanna mess up and get equipment that will keep crashing because it's not made for 24/7 stable running (server equipment)The AES support is for:
Sandy bridge: all from i5 up
Ivy bridge: all from i5 up and some i3
Haswell: all except Pentium and Celeronso if you plan to do a haswell build you can just get an i3.
-
And didn't people have problems with SSDs because they started dying after a few months?
Some people have these problems.
The ones who use cheap & crappy consumer SSD.
Very few do have any problems with reliable SSD from reputable manufacturers (think: Intel, Samsung).
Again: Don't choose their bleeding edge consumer series, and don't let yourself fooled by maximum transfer rates
SSD wear is a very overrated problem.well i prefer WD HDDs and i chose the wd red because it's designed for 24/7 operation and 1tb is the smallest they got.
Mechanical hard drives are way more likely to fail than a reliable SSD, in my experience.
I'd believe there might be a greater variance amongst SSD models / manufacturers.
While some bad SSD might be more prone to fail than mechanical HDD, good SSD tend to have lower failure/return rates (than any mechanical HDD). -
well i prefer WD HDDs and i chose the wd red because it's designed for 24/7 operation and 1tb is the smallest they got.
Mechanical hard drives are way more likely to fail than a reliable SSD, in my experience.
I'd believe there might be a greater variance amongst SSD models / manufacturers.
While some bad SSD might be more prone to fail than mechanical HDD, good SSD tend to have lower failure/return rates (than any mechanical HDD).i don't know there are a lot of topics here on how SSD disks have failed, i still think a NAS HDD will last longer since it's designed for that type of use + for the price of a quality SSD i can get 2 HDDs.
-
i don't know there are a lot of topics here on how SSD disks have failed, i still think a NAS HDD will last longer since it's designed for that type of use + for the price of a quality SSD i can get 2 HDDs.
I beg to differ. ;)
From my own job experience.
And from any sane stats that I can find on the internet.well i prefer WD HDDs and i chose the wd red because it's designed for 24/7 operation and 1tb is the smallest they got.
The 3.5" is the smallest 3.5" they got (there's a 750GB 2.5").
By the way, if you're hell-bent on getting mechanical HD from Western Digital ;) and the 1TB is just "the smallest they got", maybe you'd like to consider the WD Re series?
The 250GB Re should be about the same price as the Red - though it is slightly louder at up to 30dba and seems to use a little bit more power, it is advertised as having better reliability - and has the longer warranty to boot:Target market:
WD Red: "Designed and tested for small scale RAID environments / Personal/Small Office Home Office"
WD Re: "Durable capacity storage for high-availability deployments / Medium-Large scale Enterprises"MTBF (hours):
WD Red: 1,000,000
WD Re: 1,200,000Non-recoverable read errors per bits read:
WD Red: <1 in 10^14
WD Re: <10 in 10^16Warranty:
WD Red: 3 years
WD Re: 5 yearsWD Red: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771442.pdf
WD Re: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771444.pdf -
i don't know there are a lot of topics here on how SSD disks have failed, i still think a NAS HDD will last longer since it's designed for that type of use + for the price of a quality SSD i can get 2 HDDs.
I beg to differ. ;)
From my own job experience.
And from any sane stats that I can find on the internet.well i prefer WD HDDs and i chose the wd red because it's designed for 24/7 operation and 1tb is the smallest they got.
The 3.5" is the smallest 3.5" they got (there's a 750GB 2.5").
By the way, if you're hell-bent on getting mechanical HD from Western Digital, and the 1TB i just "the smallest they got", maybe you'd consider the WD Re series?Target market:
WD Red: "Designed and tested for small scale RAID environments / Personal/Small Office Home Office"
WD Re: "Durable capacity storage for high-availability deployments / Medium-Large scale Enterprises"MTBF (hours):
WD Red: 1,000,000
WD Re: 1,200,000Non-recoverable read errors per bits read:
WD Red: <1 in 10^14
WD Re: <10 in 10^16Warranty:
WD Red: 3 years
WD Re: 5 yearsWD Red: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771442.pdf
WD Re: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771444.pdfThe 250GB Re should be about the same price as the Red - though the first is a bit louder at 30dba and seems to use a little bit more power.
Hmm..weird, didn't look at the MTBF for the HDD-s but it seems low, in that you are right the samsung 840 ssd claims to have MTBF of 1.5 million.
I don't have much experience with SSD disks but i have HDDs that were used a lot and are over 10 years old and they still work without a problem, but they are loud when the head is moving :P
-
i have HDDs that were used a lot and are over 10 years old
So your 10+ year old HDDs have been alive and kicking for longer than SSDs have even been on the market at all?
Well, these sure don't make for a good comparison. ;D
(PS: Just saying… I don't mean this as an argument for or against anything)