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

    Supermicro X10SBA

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    27 Posts 6 Posters 5.7k 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.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      Assuming we are talking 200Mbps (megabits per second) the j1900 would have no problems for straight firewall/NAT.
      Once you start adding Snort or VPNs things get a lot tougher. I still think you'd be fine though. There are a number of threads here with numbers, for example:
      https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=73518.msg443981#msg443981

      Steve

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        kejianshi
        last edited by

        Its a weak processor - Better safe than sorry.

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

          I agree, finding out your CPU isn't up to the job after you've bought your board etc is bad. However it's all relative. In that same thread it's tested pushing >1Gbps of firewall/NAT. Next to my underclocked P4-M it looks pretty fast.  ;)

          Steve

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • K
            kejianshi
            last edited by

            He could certainly try it and see how it goes.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • ?
              Guest
              last edited by

              @kejianshi:

              You should probably get yourself a nice power hungry I5 or I7 powered box because if you start running VPNs and using packages with that much bandwidth on tap, you will max out low power processors in a hurry.

              I run several 1Gbps/1Gbps links (one at work, another at home) over C2758 SoCs.

              not power hungry, at all.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                kejianshi
                last edited by

                Use an Atom based board.  Makes no difference to me.  I'm not the one that will be looking for a new board six months later (-;

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  Moosecall
                  last edited by

                  I think the old notions of atom processors need to re-evaluated or thrown out the window entirely with the silvermont architecture (avoton and rangeley).

                  From everything that has been posted by ESF recently, I expect the C2758 to be a workhorse for pfsense users

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

                    Indeed, it seems somewhat farcical that Intel desided to group them in the Atom family. These are far far away from an N270.  ;)

                    Steve

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

                      Heh, I've actually decided (in the end!) to go with the original Supermicro.

                      Power here costs a bomb (about 25 cents per kwh). Hence, even if I throw boards away when newer more power efficient ones enter the market, it still isn't too bad a proposition to not "future proof" and just get the board that works for now while upgrading in the future as needs increase. Anything is an improvement over the current Asus elcheapo, and this will help me get my feet wet with pfsense first.

                      If I feel the thirst for more power, then… someone will get to buy my Supermicro off fleabay :P

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • E
                        Escorpiom
                        last edited by

                        I agree with wshyang.
                        My monthly power bill is half a workers monthly wage. Yes it's that bad. And its just a small shop.
                        LED lightning is extremely popular here, and people even turn off the fridge at night to save on electricity.
                        So also a X10SBA for me. Perhaps even two boards.

                        Atom syndrome is today like the Celeron syndrome from a few years ago (socket 370).
                        A few weeks ago I build a Celeron based system for a friend. It had to be cheap.
                        At first, he frowned upon the Celeron processor I used for the build.
                        I explained that the Ivy Bridge Celeron today is already faster than the E8400 core2duo, consuming less power.

                        So yes, I think it is time to review the Atom processor.

                        Cheers.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • K
                          kejianshi
                          last edited by

                          After you build it, tell us how it works.

                          I'd be interested in CPU load when transferring files at gigabit speed from one VLAN to another or from LAN through WAN.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • ?
                            Guest
                            last edited by

                            @Moosecall:

                            I think the old notions of atom processors need to re-evaluated or thrown out the window entirely with the silvermont architecture (avoton and rangeley).

                            From everything that has been posted by ESF recently, I expect the C2758 to be a workhorse for pfsense users

                            I've got a C2758 board here with embedded Intel 10G.  It's my new toy.  With luck, I'll get things 'tuned' (likely: rewritten somewhat) to be able to packet filter and VPN at 10Gbps throughput.

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