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

    This hardware look ok?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    14 Posts 5 Posters 2.6k 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.
    • G
      grandrivers
      last edited by

      Supermicro A1SRM-2558F-B Intel Atom C2558/ DDR3/ SATA3/ V&4GbE/ MicroATX Motherboard & CPU Combo
      can be had cheaper

      SUPERMICRO SC505 203B  ports are front mount on this chassis

      pfsense plus 25.03 super micro A1SRM-2558F
      C2558 32gig ECC  60gig SSD

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B
        bob76535
        last edited by

        I looked at that one and I did not like the case requirements.

        I ordered this instead:

        C2550 MB - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182914

        Case - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811152222

        Memory (4) - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148829

        Drive - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236342

        Think that will be ok?

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

          I just installed pfSense on a Supermicro A1SRi-2758F (basically the C2758 version of your motherboard) and it screams.

          I wouldn't be surprised if you got gigabit throughput with just NAT and firewalling on the board you have. Installing other packages will of course affect your overall throughput.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • B
            bob76535
            last edited by

            That's good to hear.  We pretty much just use it as a transparent firewall (no NAT we have a /24 of public IPs) and intrusion detection so it should run well.

            Thanks

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

              @antillie:

              I just installed pfSense on a Supermicro A1SRi-2758F (basically the C2758 version of your motherboard) and it screams.

              I wouldn't be surprised if you got gigabit throughput with just NAT and firewalling on the board you have. Installing other packages will of course affect your overall throughput.

              Too expensive for me…...
              but as 2758 is a 8-core platform, you can put decent load on it without sacrificing performance, the bigger brother, C2750 has proven to be about 50% processing power of existing low end Xeon E3, so C2758 won't be too far away from this....

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

                @edwardwong:

                Too expensive for me…...
                but as 2758 is a 8-core platform, you can put decent load on it without sacrificing performance, the bigger brother, C2750 has proven to be about 50% processing power of existing low end Xeon E3, so C2758 won't be too far away from this....

                You got that a bit backwards, the C2758 is the more powerful version of the C2750 due to the inclusion of quick assist. Although both CPUs will easily push 1000 mpbs of routed and firewalled traffic. However once pfSense supports quick assist the C2358 will probably outperform the C2750 by a large margin and the C2758 will probably spank most Xeons. At the moment pfSense is leaving a huge amount of hardware acceleration on the table with regards to the high end Rangeley CPUs.

                From what I understand Intel is working closely with the pfSence devs to get quick assist working but who knows how long it will take.

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

                  @antillie:

                  @edwardwong:

                  Too expensive for me…...
                  but as 2758 is a 8-core platform, you can put decent load on it without sacrificing performance, the bigger brother, C2750 has proven to be about 50% processing power of existing low end Xeon E3, so C2758 won't be too far away from this....

                  You got that a bit backwards, the C2758 is the more powerful version of the C2750 due to the inclusion of quick assist. Although both CPUs will easily push 1000 mpbs of routed and firewalled traffic. However once pfSense supports quick assist the C2358 will probably outperform the C2750 by a large margin and the C2758 will probably spank most Xeons. At the moment pfSense is leaving a huge amount of hardware acceleration on the table with regards to the high end Rangeley CPUs.

                  From what I understand Intel is working closely with the pfSence devs to get quick assist working but who knows how long it will take.

                  I know it's not really apple-apple comparison….if you mean crypto applications, definitely C2758 wins, but for some other things not related to crypto, C2750 has Turbo Boost which might help a bit, I wish C2758 would have Turbo Boost as well so that it can be a full feature SoC

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

                    To me single core turbo boost seems a little silly on an 8 core CPU. Surely anything you use on such a system will be multi-threaded. Otherwise you would have been better off with an i7.

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

                      Hi folks,

                      I know it's not really apple-apple comparison….if you mean crypto applications, definitely C2758 wins, but for some other things not related to crypto, C2750 has Turbo Boost which might help a bit, I
                      wish C2758 would have Turbo Boost as well so that it can be a full feature SoC

                      C2758 Rangeley = AES-NI and Intel QuickAssist
                      Better for building security appliances

                      C2750 Avoton = AES-NI and Turbo Boost
                      Better for building small servers

                      But for sure if the C2758 will be suited with Turbo Boost on top it would be the best SoC ever!

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

                        @antillie:

                        To me single core turbo boost seems a little silly on an 8 core CPU. Surely anything you use on such a system will be multi-threaded. Otherwise you would have been better off with an i7.

                        Nope, turbo boost works on all core, not just a single core (like those normal desktop processors)

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

                          I guess quick assist must be capable of some incredible things then. Otherwise there would be no point in the C2xx8 CPUs.

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

                            @antillie:

                            I guess quick assist must be capable of some incredible things then. Otherwise there would be no point in the C2xx8 CPUs.

                            Hmm, as I see it right the TurboBoost is better if you drive a server like apache, with some
                            high load peaks and the QuickAssist is better for security based appliances if the Code will be
                            optimized for using this integrated SoC option. So I will be going with C2xx8 former called
                            "Rangeley" this would be better for driving pfSense on it I think.

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

                              Yes, QuickAssist will be better, as it supports more compression/encryption types.

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