PfSense on Intel NUC5CPYH
-
Am I the only one who thinks it strange that Intel would produce a motherboard with a different vendor's Ethernet chip on it?? Would you think it odd to pop the hood of your new Ferrari and find a Toyota engine inside?
It can be a matter of costs, or even chip availability. Who knows. There is always a reason for them.
For instance (and a tad Off Topic, sorry):
Jaguar hasn't manufactured an engine of its own design in one of its own plants since previous owner Ford Motor Co. closed the old Radford plant in Coventry, England, in 1997.
For that reason, a Jaguar V12 has two 6 cylinder Renault engines (bolted together) in it's engine compartment.Same goes for other british luxury cars (Aston Martin…)
I didn't know this until a Jaguar nerd told me this story..Insane world, folks..
Robbert
-
@jwt:
Looks like support for the 8111H was added to FreeBSD -HEAD in late September.
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/c1d4644cbc1efd41f962e4979caf367c93d3c5f0
With any luck, this will make a 10.3-RELEASE, and we'll be able to cut a pfSense -RELEASE soon after.
Sounds promising.
Would it be possible to add that driver to an existing current version of pfSense, or will there be a OS version mismatch error??
Robbert
-
Am I the only one who thinks it strange that Intel would produce a motherboard with a different vendor's Ethernet chip on it?? Would you think it odd to pop the hood of your new Ferrari and find a Toyota engine inside?
No I would not thing so! But buying hardware and finding out then that this hardware is not fully supported
by the system I want to use is also very odd! In normal I find out these things at first and than I buy the
hardware that is matching well to the system I prefer to use.Would it be possible to add that driver to an existing current version of pfSense, or will there be a OS version mismatch error??
It would be even better to insert only drivers matching to the base version of pfSense.
10.1 > 10.1
10.3 > 10.3
32Bit > 64bit -
The biggest thing preventing using Intel NUCs for a compact, easily available, low wattage pfSense box remain the lack of a second NIC. And I'm sure* it's a matter of cost that means Intel is using a realtek NIC.
The Intel NUCs are supposed to have replacable top covers which can have additional features e.g. TV tuners etc. Is anyone producing a lid with a second NIC?
-
With the single NIC you can still do "router on a stick" with VLANs as long as your switch supports it.
-
With the single NIC you can still do "router on a stick" with VLANs as long as your switch supports it.
To add to this, "smart" switches are getting cheaper and cheaper. I just picked up a TP-LINK TL-SG108E for ~$27 with rebate. Not a fully managed switch like we all wish we had, but tiny, fanless, and supports VLANs. Makes a pfsense box with a single physical NIC a reality for nearly anyone.
-
@sos:
And I'm sure* it's a matter of cost that means Intel is using a realtek NIC.
And I'm sure you're wrong about this, but I probably know more than I should, and there are NDAs to consider.
Let's put it this way: the most Intel would save on a NUC5CPYH with Intel Ethernet .vs Realtek Ethernet is the cost of a low-end Intel Ethernet part like the i211 or i218.
ARK lists the i211 at $2.13 (http://ark.intel.com/products/64404/Intel-Ethernet-Controller-I211-AT). An i218-V is $1.72 (http://ark.intel.com/products/71305/Intel-Ethernet-Connection-I218-V) on ARK. Note that these parts all include the PHY. so even if Realtek 8111 parts were free, the most Intel would save would be a few dollars, and other than transfer price accounting, these parts cost Intel (who makes the NUC) at lot less than the price on ARK, if for no other reason than Intel doesn't need to profit from the sale of the Ethernet part when it's making a NUC.
-
@jwt:
Looks like support for the 8111H was added to FreeBSD -HEAD in late September.
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/c1d4644cbc1efd41f962e4979caf367c93d3c5f0
With any luck, this will make a 10.3-RELEASE, and we'll be able to cut a pfSense -RELEASE soon after.
Sounds promising.
Would it be possible to add that driver to an existing current version of pfSense, or will there be a OS version mismatch error??
Robbert
It's almost always a mistake to backport the changes. I could make it work, but since 10.3 isn't that far off, the question becomes "Why introduce this kind of ugly into the product?"
-
@jwt:
Looks like support for the 8111H was added to FreeBSD -HEAD in late September.
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/c1d4644cbc1efd41f962e4979caf367c93d3c5f0
With any luck, this will make a 10.3-RELEASE, and we'll be able to cut a pfSense -RELEASE soon after.
I've managed to compile these changes into an pfSense kernel module.
However I'm lost on how to get it into the installer image, or how to install pfSense on the NUC5CPYH without a NIC detected, so that I can replace the module after installation.
If anyone has a way of installing pfSense without a NIC present, please let me know.
-
@DB9:
@jwt:
Looks like support for the 8111H was added to FreeBSD -HEAD in late September.
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/c1d4644cbc1efd41f962e4979caf367c93d3c5f0
With any luck, this will make a 10.3-RELEASE, and we'll be able to cut a pfSense -RELEASE soon after.
I've managed to compile these changes into an pfSense kernel module.
However I'm lost on how to get it into the installer image, or how to install pfSense on the NUC5CPYH without a NIC detected, so that I can replace the module after installation.
If anyone has a way of installing pfSense without a NIC present, please let me know.
You probably know this, but pfsense 2.3 (based on freebsd10.3 dev branch) seems to work.
-
The 2.3 snapshots have been based on FreeBSD 10.3-PRERELEASE for a while now.
the patch went in to STABLE-10 December 27
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/b65a25360bf453761bef728656d2499296150eb6So this has been fixed in 2.3 for quite a while now.
All OP needs to do is load pfSense 2.3, and his NUC will work.
