Intel NUC BOXD34010WYK2 - Wont find any NIC
-
goozopancho: USB 3.0 support is good for adding network cards, when the hardware aren't able to accept more fixed network cards.
gag me.
Traffic shaping is not that important for me. But about 2.2, any rought estimate of release date?
I'm guessing "April". (We seem to be able to ship a release about 2x/year.)
-
Try disabling USB3 support in the bios, force it to use a legacy mode. USB NICs are not great though, notoriously problematic. Some people have no issues though. I don't think the AX88179 is supported by the axe(4) driver yet though.
@Gonzopancho: Any chance we could get the updated igb.ko module, with broken AltQ support, hosted publicly somewhere? It seems like there are many people here who would happily sacrifice altq for working NICs.
Steve
-
I have the i5 version of this working using VLAN's and virtual box vm of pfSense under Ubuntu. I knew going into it I was going to have to do some tricky stuff to get it working. But it's been up for two weeks solid and when the next pfSense release comes out it will be a monster on native hardware with AES-NI. I may just keep it in the VM tho, because it's already much much faster than I need it to be.
-
I have the i5 version of this working using VLAN's and virtual box vm of pfSense under Ubuntu. I knew going into it I was going to have to do some tricky stuff to get it working. But it's been up for two weeks solid and when the next pfSense release comes out it will be a monster on native hardware with AES-NI. I may just keep it in the VM tho, because it's already much much faster than I need it to be.
Next pfsense will have native hardware with AES support ?
Can you please shed some details on this, I always seen the CPU handling the AES instructions (50-70%) reduction in cpu load
so are you suggesting pfsense will also now internally support AES instructions and reduce the cpu workload even more ?
-
AES-NI support is already available it just doesn't work all that well at this point. I would expect that a move from FreeBSD 8.3 to 10 would result in some improvement there.
-
AES-NI support is already available it just doesn't work all that well at this point. I would expect that a move from FreeBSD 8.3 to 10 would result in some improvement there.
Not really. If it gets fixed in 10, we'll likely back port it to 8.3.
one of the big problems is that the guy doing AES-NI for FreeBSD has never tried it with IPsec (or OpenVPN).
-
@gonzopancho:
AES-NI support is already available it just doesn't work all that well at this point. I would expect that a move from FreeBSD 8.3 to 10 would result in some improvement there.
Not really. If it gets fixed in 10, we'll likely back port it to 8.3.
one of the big problems is that the guy doing AES-NI for FreeBSD has never tried it with IPsec (or OpenVPN).
Seriously? How the hell do you write code for something and not test it? I would have sent him a damn server…
-
Even if it is supported or half not working may as well get an AES NI enabled CPU which could cut the usage itself for you.
Still that does figure in regards to current AES support.
Does anyone know when 2.2 will release? hopefully it supports all these latest realtek and nics as well as improved or fixed AES support.
-
@gonzopancho:
one of the big problems is that the guy doing AES-NI for FreeBSD has never tried it with IPsec (or OpenVPN).
Seriously? How the hell do you write code for something and not test it? I would have sent him a damn server…
Because he's more focused on storage.
Hell, I just sent him an Avila board the other day. It's not like we're not talking.
-
Even if it is supported or half not working may as well get an AES NI enabled CPU which could cut the usage itself for you.
Still that does figure in regards to current AES support.
Does anyone know when 2.2 will release? hopefully it supports all these latest realtek and nics as well as improved or fixed AES support.
Realtek is always gonna suck. It might suck less in 10 (2.2). The AES-NI support isn't going to get any better unless we MFC a change back from -HEAD (assuming that happens).