HP T5740 gigabit over PCIx
-
Ah! I didn't get there were both PCIe and PCI-X risers.
I agree with Steve - given that you have the IBM card, try that first.
I'm pretty sure the HP NC36xT cards are rebranded Intel cards. They use an 82571EB chipset in the NC360 and 2 x 82571GB in the NC364.
-
For some reason this project got me interested and I did a bit of research today.
Your IBM card is a 3.3V 64-bit PCI-X. The riser with the white connector is a 5V 32-bit PCI .
So I don't think you'll have much joy there, unless you feel like going down this path. Of course, you could just end up frying the card.
Overall the PCIe riser and dual-port NC360T might be easier and quicker.
Good luck and please let us know the outcome.
-
Ah, of course. I always forget about the voltage! ::) I guess it's so infrequently something that you have to worry about these days. Filing out the 3.3V notch seems pretty extreme to me. In the worst case you could damage both the card and the motherboard doing that.
Steve
-
Well lol I got everything over the weekend and I did cut out the notch. That had been my plan the entire time never even thought about it really causing a problem. So unfortunately I don't have pictures at the moment but I will try to get some today. It was an extremely tight fit. I was able to get the HDD (XBox 360 20 gig), 4 port Intel NIC and wireless intel NIC all installed and all was recognized. Everything has been up and running since Saturday. Not sure what I am going to do with the wireless card kind of put it in just because I could. I am only using 2 of the 4 ports on the card at the moment so not sure how it will act once I use them all.
-
Nice. A good result all round then. :)
Post some throughput numbers if you do any testing, always useful.Steve
-
Nice. A good result all round then. :)
Post some throughput numbers if you do any testing, always useful.Steve
I have Time Warner Cable internet I am paying for 15 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. I didn't test the upload but I did a test on IPv6 and IPv4 below are the results. The IPv6 is slower.
IPv4
[2.1.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.scanlon]/root(4): fetch -o /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
/dev/null 100% of 100 MB 1713 kBps 00m00sIPv6
[2.1.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.scanlon]/root(5): fetch -o /dev/null http://ipv6.download.thinkbroadband.com/100MB.zip
/dev/null 100% of 100 MB 1343 kBps 00m00s -
That's really just limited by your WAN speed then. A more interesting test would be between two internal interfaces, both on the PCI-X card.
Steve
-
That's really just limited by your WAN speed then. A more interesting test would be between two internal interfaces, both on the PCI-X card.
Steve
I was looking at ways to test that. I came across iperf so I am going to try it out later. I will post my results
-
iperf results (This is between a client and pfsense) I am doing this remotely so I only have access to pfsense and the client I am typing on now.
Pfsense was the server.
TCP test
iperf -c 192.168.1.1 -t 20 -w 100k -P 20Output
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 6] 0.0-20.0 sec 40.8 MBytes 17.1 Mbits/sec [ 7] 0.0-20.0 sec 34.6 MBytes 14.5 Mbits/sec [ 12] 0.0-20.0 sec 34.6 MBytes 14.5 Mbits/sec [ 5] 0.0-20.0 sec 36.2 MBytes 15.2 Mbits/sec [ 4] 0.0-20.0 sec 41.4 MBytes 17.3 Mbits/sec [ 17] 0.0-20.1 sec 36.9 MBytes 15.4 Mbits/sec [ 20] 0.0-20.0 sec 43.6 MBytes 18.3 Mbits/sec [ 16] 0.0-20.1 sec 37.9 MBytes 15.8 Mbits/sec [ 22] 0.0-20.1 sec 35.5 MBytes 14.8 Mbits/sec [ 9] 0.0-20.1 sec 37.0 MBytes 15.4 Mbits/sec [ 19] 0.0-20.1 sec 40.2 MBytes 16.8 Mbits/sec [ 8] 0.0-20.1 sec 34.6 MBytes 14.4 Mbits/sec [ 13] 0.0-20.1 sec 41.9 MBytes 17.4 Mbits/sec [ 10] 0.0-20.2 sec 41.4 MBytes 17.2 Mbits/sec [ 3] 0.0-20.2 sec 40.6 MBytes 16.9 Mbits/sec [ 15] 0.0-20.2 sec 40.0 MBytes 16.6 Mbits/sec [ 11] 0.0-20.2 sec 28.4 MBytes 11.8 Mbits/sec [ 14] 0.0-20.2 sec 31.9 MBytes 13.3 Mbits/sec [ 21] 0.0-20.2 sec 24.8 MBytes 10.3 Mbits/sec [ 18] 0.0-20.2 sec 26.6 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec [SUM] 0.0-20.2 sec 729 MBytes 302 Mbits/secMax was 302 Mbps
UDP Test
iperf -c 192.168.1.1 -u -b 300mOutput
Client connecting to 192.168.1.1, UDP port 5001 Sending 1470 byte datagrams UDP buffer size: 160 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.1.2 port 57996 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 346 MBytes 290 Mbits/sec [ 3] Sent 246971 datagrams [ 3] Server Report: [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 346 MBytes 290 Mbits/sec 0.017 ms 14/246970 (0.0057%) [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1 datagrams received out-of-orderI am pretty happy with the results. Looks like the CPU is the bottle neck. Ran the TCP test for 200 seconds it transferred 6.83 Gigabytes of data at 293Mbps and the CPU was maxed out.
-
Interesting thanks. Be interesting to see how that compares with running thd server and client on separate mchines behind pfSense on separate interfaces.
Steve
-
Interesting thanks. Be interesting to see how that compares with running thd server and client on separate mchines behind pfSense on separate interfaces.
Steve
My plan was to try that when I get home. I will let you know.
-
two PCs on the same LAN, same pfsense port.
[SUM] 0.0-20.1 sec 2.16 GBytes 926 Mbits/sectwo PCs on two different NIC ports
[SUM] 0.0-20.0 sec 941 MBytes 394 Mbits/sec -
Actually faster than just receiving the traffic. I guess it's definitely CPU bound then.
A further interesting test would be to enable IP fastforwarding. That may or may not have a dramatic effect on traffiic that is passed through the box but not terminated there.
It's enabled in System: Advanced: System Tunables:. Set the net.inet.ip.fastforwarding tunable to 1. You may have to reboot to activate that. Be aware that setting that value WILL break IPSec pass-through so if you need that disable it again after the test.Steve
-
It seems that maybe I am wrong. The CPU will max out only when using the pfsense box as the server. I wasn't watching it when looking at the above tests. I set the fast-forward option and get about the same speeds. I believe the best was 394Mbps. The CPU only reached 67% and only for a moment the average for the 20 second test was probably 63%. So I am guessing that the PCI bus? is limiting the card to ~400Mbps?
-
Yes. You might expect a maximum throughput of half the bandwidth which would be ~512Mbps however that doesn't allow for any return traffic, error-correction, ACKs etc. Did you see any reduction in CPU use with IP fastforwarding enabled?
Steve
-
Pictures of the box. it was a pretty tight fit. I had to cut the SATA cable strain relief so it would bend enough when the PCI right angel adapter pressed on it. Tried uploading these pictures to this post but they were too big.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2OPLQVuFuhDNFh0WmhhazJrUmJHUngxM0FHR1BiQjRLTUZv/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2OPLQVuFuhDbF9xdEdkbGtwaWdzTTlvbW9MWWN5bVg1QmVR/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2OPLQVuFuhDSUJJMzZYVHU5SkwtNk9jcGtxWTBaRWNvUnFr/edit?usp=sharing
-
Looks great - one question - where did you get the power from to run your fan?
