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

    New Alix board for 2013

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    265 Posts 69 Posters 262.0k 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.
    • W
      watercooled
      last edited by

      The Jaguar-based processor planned for the release version supports the AES-NI instruction set, so provided it's supported in software, it would allow for accelerated throughput when using the AES cipher.

      Either way, the new CPU cores are significantly faster than the current Geode CPU, so as stephenw10 said, it's likely the new ALIX will be faster in software than the current one is with accelerators.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • A
        Applied
        last edited by

        @watercooled:

        The Jaguar-based processor planned for the release version

        The release version will be based on the the older Ontario core (T40E) without AES-NI support, not on Jaguar.

        When they say, Jaguar's on their roadmap, I'd take this as "further down the road". This design should be a much smaller step up than from Alix to the APU - but it's no simple drop-in replacement either. I think AES-NI support in software won't be a big issue - but I wouldn't hold my breath for an "AES-NI-capable Alix" hardware release earlier than 2015.

        The pending 1st generation APU should be a magnitude faster than the Alix though. I should alsol be faster on crypto, even without hardware support.

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

          It would be very interesting to see some acceleration using the graphics cores that would presumably otherwise be unused. I see people talking about that possibility.

          Steve

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • W
            watercooled
            last edited by

            I seem to remember reading (or possibly misreading) that the release version would use the Kyoto APU.

            Of course, it becomes a one-chip solution with that so the board would need to be largely re-designed from the two-chip Brazos platform.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A
              Applied
              last edited by

              @watercooled:

              I seem to remember reading (or possibly misreading) that the release version would use the Kyoto APU.

              That would be the Opteron on the roadmap.

              I was referring to Pascal Dorniers post on the PC Engines support forum:

              "Production boards will change from T40N (9W TDP) to T40E (6W TDP)"

              http://www.pcengines.info/forums/?page=post&id=6DBDDAB1-20E9-48CE-99A8-371F1C91D239&fid=DCB0643F-CE4D-4CAA-A3BA-72135A57B61D&cachecommand=bypass&pageindex=8

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • W
                watercooled
                last edited by

                Yeah, I'm just using the platform/market/core names interchangeably sorry. Worded another way, I thought the Jaguar part would be used on the release version, with the Bobcat platform only released in limited quantities.

                Now I think of it though, that doesn't make a ton of sense.

                Like I say I've probably just misread it somewhere. Either way, no biggie. :)

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • nesenseN
                  nesense
                  last edited by

                  Hello gents, I got the APU board prototype yesterday with the recommended package:

                  apu1b board
                  case1d2blku enclosure (black gives best cooling)
                  ac12veur2 AC adapter (or ac12vus)
                  msata16a m-SATA SSD (optional)
                  wle200nx miniPCI wifi + 2 pigsma + 2 antsmadb (optional)

                  First of all I tried flashing the embedded NanoBSD image to a SanDisk 4GB SDHC card (2) and it failed to mount the filesystem after boot, I also tried the Memstick image on the sdcard and it failed too, I'm not sure why but from the documentation provided with the board it says that the sdcard reader is connected through USB on board.

                  Next thing I tried was flashing the embedded nanobsd image on a usb flash drive and that also failed, I ended up booting it successfully with flashing the memstick-serial image on the usb flash drive, and installing the OS on the m-SATA, since installing on SDCard also failed using this method (got incorrect block/geometry I think)

                  the provided WiFi kept giving me kernel panic, I tried mixed G+N mode and it crashed with auto channel selection, when I set it to channel 11 it didn't crash the kernel but the wifi card failed to start and the interface kept showing as DOWN, also 802.11g failed and crashed the kernel:

                  Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
                  cpuid = 1; apic id = 01
                  fault virtual address  = 0xe
                  fault code              = supervisor read data, page not present
                  instruction pointer    = 0x20:0xffffffff802e830f
                  stack pointer          = 0x28:0xffffff802f059750
                  frame pointer          = 0x28:0xffffff8000299000
                  code segment            = base 0x0, limit 0xfffff, type 0x1b
                                          = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1
                  processor eflags        = interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0
                  current process        = 74391 (ifconfig)
                  trap number            = 12
                  panic: page fault
                  cpuid = 1
                  panic: bufwrite: buffer is not busy???
                  cpuid = 1

                  ath0: unable to reset hardware; hal status 3
                  aath0: ath_chan_set: unable to reset channel 11 (2462 MHz, flags 0x480), hal status 3
                  th0: ath_reset: unable to reset hardware; hal status 3

                  Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
                  cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
                  fault virtual a

                  Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
                  cpuid = 1; apic id = 01
                  fault virtual address  = 0xe
                  fault code              = supervisor read data, page not present
                  instruction pointer    = 0x20:0xffffffff802eaedd
                  stack pointer          = 0x28:0xffffff80000209f0
                  frame pointer          = 0x28:0xffffff8000299000
                  code segment            = base 0x0, limit 0xfffff, type 0x1b
                                          = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1
                  processor eflags        = interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0
                  current process        = 11 (swi4: clock)
                  trap number            = 12
                  panic: page fault
                  cpuid = 1
                  ddress  = 0xe
                  fault code              = supervisor read data, page not present
                  instruction pointer    = 0x20:0xffffffff802e830f
                  stack pointer          = 0x28:0xffffff802f02c750
                  frame pointer          = 0x28:0xffffff8000299000
                  code segment            = base 0x0, limit 0xfffff, type 0x1b
                                          = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1
                  processor eflags        = interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0
                  current process        = 45851 (ifconfig)
                  trap number            = 12

                  Packages managing the LEDs aren't working.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • A
                    athurdent
                    last edited by

                    @nesense:

                    Hello gents, I got the APU board prototype yesterday with the recommended package:

                    When you find the time it would be great if you could do some performance tests, like NAT / Routing performance with or without traffic shaping.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • nesenseN
                      nesense
                      last edited by

                      When you find the time it would be great if you could do some performance tests, like NAT / Routing performance with or without traffic shaping.

                      using iperf to test throughput, default values, traffic shaper DISABLED:

                      TCP window size:  129 KByte (default)
                      –----------------------------------------------------------
                      [  4] local 192.168.10.10 port 59068 connected with 192.168.10.1 port 5001
                      [ ID] Interval      Transfer    Bandwidth
                      [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  388 MBytes  326 Mbits/sec

                      Traffic shaper ENABLED using HFSC on 2 LAN and 1 WAN (voip + all p2p protocols + all network games + some other applications):

                      –----------------------------------------------------------
                      Client connecting to 192.168.10.1, TCP port 5001
                      TCP window size:  129 KByte (default)

                      [  4] local 192.168.10.10 port 59150 connected with 192.168.10.1 port 5001
                      [ ID] Interval      Transfer    Bandwidth
                      [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  336 MBytes  282 Mbits/sec

                      will test using netio next.

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

                        How are you testing that? A throughput test is what's needed, iperf running on two separate machine not on the pfSense box.
                        326Mbps seems disappointingly slow.  :-\

                        Steve

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • nesenseN
                          nesense
                          last edited by

                          @stephenw10:

                          How are you testing that? A throughput test is what's needed, iperf running on two separate machine not on the pfSense box.
                          326Mbps seems disappointingly slow.  :-\

                          Steve

                          i'm running iperf server on pfsense and client directly connected to it through 1gbit ethernet macbook port

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

                            Ah, well not test that really gives a useful figure because that doesn't represent a normal firewall/routing situation. You need to run the server on a separate machine connected to a different interface to get a useful comparable figure.

                            Steve

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • nesenseN
                              nesense
                              last edited by

                              @stephenw10:

                              Ah, well not test that really gives a useful figure because that doesn't represent a normal firewall/routing situation. You need to run the server on a separate machine connected to a different interface to get a useful comparable figure.

                              Steve

                              you mean put a switch for example between pfsense running on APU board and the laptop instead of pfsense <–> laptop?

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • A
                                athurdent
                                last edited by

                                Nesense, thanks for your efforts!
                                A good test scenario would be something like this I think:

                                [Laptop (192.168.10.10)] - [LAN Interface (192.168.10.1) - ALIX - WAN Interface (1.1.1.1)] - [iperf server (1.1.1.2)] 
                                
                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • nesenseN
                                  nesense
                                  last edited by

                                  @athurdent:

                                  Nesense, thanks for your efforts!
                                  A good test scenario would be something like this I think:

                                  [Laptop (192.168.10.10)] - [LAN Interface (192.168.10.1) - ALIX - WAN Interface (1.1.1.1)] - [iperf server (1.1.1.2)] 
                                  

                                  No problem, I'm interested to know how well it performs too  ;D

                                  Sadly I can't do such a test right now since my WAN interface is running on 100MBIT and my other computer has its monitor at repair, i'll try to borrow a second laptop or something to do throughput tests ASAP.

                                  BTW the thermal sensors aren't working.

                                  Any idea how I can get the WLE200NX wifi card to work on pfsense? it uses the AR9280 Atheros chipset, there's this thread http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=55403.0 that mentions FreeBSD 9.x drivers working with it and that they're already on pfsense 2.1 but i'm still having issues.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • nesenseN
                                    nesense
                                    last edited by

                                    here's a picture of the board:

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • W
                                      watercooled
                                      last edited by

                                      Do you have some way to measure power consumption of the board?

                                      For comparison, I measured the 2D13 at 3W AC idle through a reasonably efficient 12V power supply. Although IIRC it didn't change under load either, my meter doesn't have decimal resolution.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • nesenseN
                                        nesense
                                        last edited by

                                        @watercooled:

                                        Do you have some way to measure power consumption of the board?

                                        For comparison, I measured the 2D13 at 3W AC idle through a reasonably efficient 12V power supply. Although IIRC it didn't change under load either, my meter doesn't have decimal resolution.

                                        Document says 6 to 12W depending on CPU load. This is using the T40N CPU with a 9W TDP. plan is to change to T40E with a 6W TDP.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • W
                                          watercooled
                                          last edited by

                                          The documentation claims about 5W DC for the existing Geode platform though, and I measured lower than that AC, so I was wondering if measured power could again be lower.

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

                                            Some of those plug-in power meters claim an amazing accuracy. However if you look at the cost if genuinely accurate power meters it's hard to believe. That's especially true for switching power supplies. It wouldn't surprise me to find they misread by a few Watts at very low power levels.

                                            Steve

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