PFsense 2.3.1 on Intel 1900
-
http://m.intl.taobao.com/detail/detail.html?id=37328846799&wp_m=seller_items_-1&wp_pk=shop/index_22920551_2255811&from=inshop&wp_app=weapp
i paid sgd178 before shipping to my country
-
Hi bro,
i just received my new 4 ports router from chinese seller, had been up and running pfsense 2.3.1 for the pass 4-5 days system was very well no hang no lag. total of 4 ports yet i configured 1WAN and 3 LAN all ports running well. here are the spec. power using external dc12v step down tranformer as can see from the picture
1)intel celeron j1900 @2.0ghz
2)2gb ddr3 so-dimm (able to support up to 8gb)
3)8gb msata ssd
4) 4*intel 82583v Gigabit Ethernet Controller
5)onboard 2 msata slot and 3 sataCan you please post where you got it from/ link to it?
https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=37328846799&_u=pke88ot3f0f
-
is this the output result you want?my pfsense run as a server, pc as a client
so how do i test it out the ethernet controller?using what hardware to test?
LAN bridged opt1 and op2 = extra 2 port switch
been running this board for the pass few days, so far so good temperture maintained at 58-62C. opt1 and opt2 having no problem bridge to LAN. meaning opt1and opt2 can act as a gigabytes switch.
Nope, bridging ports together =/= switch
The performance is never the same, bridge are software basis which takes up some cpu power while switches we are using nowadays will use ASIC + buffers to achieve much higher throughput. Another reason I do not suggest this is because of the unknown PCI-E bandwidth, the number of PCI-E lanes supported is very limited, we don't know if manufacturer is squeezing all ethernet ports in a 1x/2x/4x (PCI-E 2.0 4x max supported by J1900). Note that most Intel J1900 platform motherboard on sale right now offer only PCI-E x1 for extra devices, Intel 82583V is a PCI-E 1.0 device, which means when you have > 2 LAN ports running at full speed together will saturate the PCI-E slot. I hope the manufacturer of this firewall is assigning PCI-E x2 to all LAN chip otherwise there would be an issue. May be you can try to test it and see.
I guess you can setup 3 PC on 3 bridged port, and run iperf test.
-
is this the output result you want?my pfsense run as a server, pc as a client
Nope.
What you need to do is hook up a computer to one of the bridged ports as a server (or client).
Then test iperf from another computer connected to another of the bridged ports (can be through a switch).
What you want to do is to test the performance when the traffic flows across pfSense from 2 of the bridged ports to determine if there is an impact to the throughput (there ought to be for this class of equipment).
-
just tested 2 computers result 0-0.10 sec 1.11Gbytes 949Mbits/sec but pfsense server used up 18-20% cpu load. if i directly connected to my switch pfsense cpu will shown 0% load.
is this the output result you want?my pfsense run as a server, pc as a client
Nope.
What you need to do is hook up a computer to one of the bridged ports as a server (or client).
Then test iperf from another computer connected to another of the bridged ports (can be through a switch).
What you want to do is to test the performance when the traffic flows across pfSense from 2 of the bridged ports to determine if there is an impact to the throughput (there ought to be for this class of equipment).
-
Intresting, do you have enough systems to do all 4 ports at once?
-
just tested 2 computers result 0-0.10 sec 1.11Gbytes 949Mbits/sec but pfsense server used up 18-20% cpu load. if i directly connected to my switch pfsense cpu will shown 0% load.
Well… If it works... But I don't see a point in bridging the ports though.
Might be better if you bond them in a Lagg group (provided the switch supports) or use the other ports with an access point as guest network and such.
-
Well… If it works... But I don't see a point in bridging the ports though.
Me too! If I want to find out the routing power I don´t bridge ports together that makes them acting
as a switch. In the most common cases such like this, I would assume that the client and server install
from iPerf is each on a different PC that is sending the packets through the firewall or router, to get a
right result. -
Intresting, do you have enough systems to do all 4 ports at once?
max is can do the test with 3 systems. what kind of setup you are interested? 1 server 2 clients?
-
Intresting, do you have enough systems to do all 4 ports at once?
tested today with 2 system. OPT1 set to 192.168.2.1, OPT2 set to 192.168.3.1 and run the test end up result 0-0.10 sec 1.11Gbytes 949Mbits. not much different only thing is cpu load going up to 30-42%
-
Intresting, do you have enough systems to do all 4 ports at once?
max is can do the test with 3 systems. what kind of setup you are interested? 1 server 2 clients?
I thought everyone was interested in seeing the results of bridging the ports, so far you have only saturated two at once?
-
Intresting, do you have enough systems to do all 4 ports at once?
max is can do the test with 3 systems. what kind of setup you are interested? 1 server 2 clients?
I thought everyone was interested in seeing the results of bridging the ports, so far you have only saturated two at once?
my side here is getting late will test it out soon, updat to you guys.
-
So, there will be some issue with this setup when you are putting stress on all ports.
First of all, for NAT WAN-to-LAN, if you try to do up/download at full speed your CPU will take about 50% processing power, while your bridge is eating another 30-40% if both ports saturate. Your CPU is running hot and basically nothing else the firewall can do because there is no more processing power left.
-
o.k will do the test these few days.
-
o.k will do the test these few days. but wan to lan also depend on your internet speed hard to get the real result lan to lan should be easy to get actual speed.
-
-
i am using the 1G fiber Internet nowadays really can't hit 1000M, when just sign up able to reach 850-950 easy easy.
Hitting exactly 1000 MBit/s would be worth and in my eyes unreachable for you! And this is pending on many
more things then only a "you don´t get it right" call.1.
Hitting 1000 MBit/s is like ~940 MBit/s- TCP/IP overhead
- time for passing NAT and performing out firewall rules
(or narrowing down the entire throughput)
2.
The Internet speed test server is in my eyes not a real test that can be easily repeated by all other users.
Please use iPerf or NetIO and then with a client PC as server and a client PC as client through the pfSense.The J1900 is from Q4/2013 and be sure not server grade, and so if you get anything nearly
1000 MBit/s you should be lucky if not, it can also be based on another point. (4)On the pfSense website was announced:
501+ Mbps - Multiple cores at > 2.0GHz are required. Server class hardware with PCI-e network adapters.If you are using PPPoE for your Internet connection only one CPU (SoC) core will be in usage!
And so the full potential of your J1900 SoC will not be unleashed or used for the WAN speed too. -
i am using the 1G fiber internet nowadays really can't hit 1000M, when just sign up able to reach 850-950 easy easy.
Might be the timing. Stinkhell's oversubscription ratio is relatively high.
Try other servers - Telin, SGIX, or NME (if available).
-
before i changed to this new 4ports intel j1900 i was using the tyan s3115 mainboard its comes with dual core 1.6 atom cpu and dual giga ethernet port that time was using the ddwrt x86 version also running very well till one day the ethernet stop to work.
@BlueKobol <br:< small="">> > i am using the 1G fiber Internet nowadays really can't hit 1000M, when just sign up able to reach 850-950 easy easy.
Hitting exactly 1000 MBit/s would be worth and in my eyes unreachable for you! And this is pending on many
more things then only a "you don´t get it right" call.1.
Hitting 1000 MBit/s is like ~940 MBit/s- TCP/IP overhead
- time for passing NAT and performing out firewall rules
(or narrowing down the entire throughput)
2.
The Internet speed test server is in my eyes not a real test that can be easily repeated by all other users.
Please use iPerf or NetIO and then with a client PC as server and a client PC as client through the pfSense.The J1900 is from Q4/2013 and be sure not server grade, and so if you get anything nearly
1000 MBit/s you should be lucky if not, it can also be based on another point. (4)On the pfSense website was announced:
501+ Mbps - Multiple cores at > 2.0GHz are required. Server class hardware with PCI-e network adapters.If you are using PPPoE for your Internet connection only one CPU (SoC) core will be in usage!
And so the full potential of your J1900 SoC will not be unleashed or used for the WAN speed too.</br:<> -
guys,
just got time to test and got the result as below.
–----------------------------------------------------------------
IP :192.168.2.3 in server mode and connected to LAN port
Processsor: Intel i7-860
Mainboard: Asus p55 sabertooth
OS: Windows 7 (desktop PC)
Memory: 8gb ddr3
Ethernet controller: Realtek RTL8168D/8111DIP :192.168.3.4 in Client mode and connected to OPT1 port
OS: Windows XP (Toshiba Satellite laptop)
Memory: 4gb ddr2
Ethernet controller: Intel giga ethernet LANIP :192.168.2.4 in Client mode and connected to OPT2 port
Processor: Intel C2D Q6600
Mainboard: MSI G41-P43 combo
OS: Windows 7 (desktop PC)
Memory: 4gb ddr3
Ethernet controller: Realtek 8111Eis this the output result you want?my pfsense run as a server, pc as a client
Nope.
What you need to do is hook up a computer to one of the bridged ports as a server (or client).
Then test iperf from another computer connected to another of the bridged ports (can be through a switch).
What you want to do is to test the performance when the traffic flows across pfSense from 2 of the bridged ports to determine if there is an impact to the throughput (there ought to be for this class of equipment).
-
just seen these on aliexpress
tempted for the price
what are they like with VPN running inbound and out ?
-
just seen these on aliexpress
tempted for the price
which country are you from?
what are they like with VPN running inbound and out ?
-
Nice to be seen / quoted but can you please answer what is it like running vpn server
-
Nice to be seen / quoted but can you please answer what is it like running vpn server
i don't run vpn server at present moment.
-
192.168.3.4 -> 192.168.2.3 is NAT, right? That's too slow isn't it?
And I assume 192.168.2.3 -> 192.168.2.4 is connecting thru bridge? To me it's still too slow, if you try to do it with a normal GbE switch there should be a much better performance, and that's why most people here not recommending "bridging LAN ports just for switching purpose"guys,
just got time to test and got the result as below.
–----------------------------------------------------------------
IP :192.168.2.3 in server mode and connected to LAN port
Processsor: Intel i7-860
Mainboard: Asus p55 sabertooth
OS: Windows 7 (desktop PC)
Memory: 8gb ddr3
Ethernet controller: Realtek RTL8168D/8111DIP :192.168.3.4 in Client mode and connected to OPT1 port
OS: Windows XP (Toshiba Satellite laptop)
Memory: 4gb ddr2
Ethernet controller: Intel giga ethernet LANIP :192.168.2.4 in Client mode and connected to OPT2 port
Processor: Intel C2D Q6600
Mainboard: MSI G41-P43 combo
OS: Windows 7 (desktop PC)
Memory: 4gb ddr3
Ethernet controller: Realtek 8111Eis this the output result you want?my pfsense run as a server, pc as a client
-
192.168.2.4 (OPT1) and 192.168.3.4 (OPT2) bridged to 192.168.2.3 (LAN). yeap total agree with you speed drop alot.
192.168.3.4 -> 192.168.2.3 is NAT, right? That's too slow isn't it?
And I assume 192.168.2.3 -> 192.168.2.4 is connecting thru bridge? To me it's still too slow, if you try to do it with a normal GbE switch there should be a much better performance, and that's why most people here not recommending "bridging LAN ports just for switching purpose"guys,
just got time to test and got the result as below.
–----------------------------------------------------------------
IP :192.168.2.3 in server mode and connected to LAN port
Processsor: Intel i7-860
Mainboard: Asus p55 sabertooth
OS: Windows 7 (desktop PC)
Memory: 8gb ddr3
Ethernet controller: Realtek RTL8168D/8111DIP :192.168.3.4 in Client mode and connected to OPT1 port
OS: Windows XP (Toshiba Satellite laptop)
Memory: 4gb ddr2
Ethernet controller: Intel giga ethernet LANIP :192.168.2.4 in Client mode and connected to OPT2 port
Processor: Intel C2D Q6600
Mainboard: MSI G41-P43 combo
OS: Windows 7 (desktop PC)
Memory: 4gb ddr3
Ethernet controller: Realtek 8111Eis this the output result you want?my pfsense run as a server, pc as a client
-
So this might be matching with what I mentioned before: The manufacturer is trying to put all devices together on same PCI-e lane, as a result the 2 ethernet cards are unable to run at full speed simultaneously, I owned another board which is industrial grade (Jetway N2930), claimed for networking purpose, and mine can do 940Mbps WAN-LAN NAT, and the PCI-e configuration could be an important factor.
-
i suspect might be my laptop ethernet.card driver issuse.
so to say that if i connected to a giga swith the output result should be better, right.So this might be matching with what I mentioned before: The manufacturer is trying to put all devices together on same PCI-e lane, as a result the 2 ethernet cards are unable to run at full speed simultaneously, I owned another board which is industrial grade (Jetway N2930), claimed for networking purpose, and mine can do 940Mbps WAN-LAN NAT, and the PCI-e configuration could be an important factor.
-
i suspect might be my laptop ethernet.card driver issuse.
so to say that if i connected to a giga swith the output result should be better, right.Did you enable any traffic shaping or limiters on the box?
The disparity in the results seems too large and the J1900 most certainly can do firewalling/ routing beyond 500mbps at the very least.
-
no, i did not. something is fishy. i need to do some more test to comfirm the result.
i suspect might be my laptop ethernet.card driver issuse.
so to say that if i connected to a giga swith the output result should be better, right.Did you enable any traffic shaping or limiters on the box?
The disparity in the results seems too large and the J1900 most certainly can do firewalling/ routing beyond 500mbps at the very least.
-
There is a very similar machine:
Jetway JBC375F533W
Jetway Site: http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/JBC375F533.html
Shop: http://www.cartft.com/catalog/il/2000The "W" is for the wireless/wifi version, there is also one without the "W" and hence no wifi.
In general a nice device, 4x GBit LAN, pretty compact, enough power for any SOHO I would say, and two slots inside for expansion.
-
the 2 link you mentioned the cpu onboard is the same with mine, only that the ethernet controller is different should be better that mine.
There is a very similar machine:
Jetway JBC375F533W
Jetway Site: http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/JBC375F533.html
Shop: http://www.cartft.com/catalog/il/2000The "W" is for the wireless/wifi version, there is also one without the "W" and hence no wifi.
In general a nice device, 4x GBit LAN, pretty compact, enough power for any SOHO I would say, and two slots inside for expansion.
-
For anyone else looking at these, here is another option. Same processor (J1900), same 4 port Intel NIC (82583V), slightly different layout and case. I've seen good reviews from people running that model w/ pfSense on amazon and redit. I ordered one of these last week but haven't received it yet. J1900, 4 port Intel NIC, 8 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD for $225 delivered (I bought the RAM and SSD on Amazon).
-
if you can read chinese i might a good place to get from here https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a1z10.3-c-s.w4002-14608441056.39.QL1CPU&id=37328846799..
-
For anyone else looking at these, here is another option. Same processor (J1900), same 4 port Intel NIC (82583V), slightly different layout and case. I've seen good reviews from people running that model w/ pfSense on amazon and redit. I ordered one of these last week but haven't received it yet. J1900, 4 port Intel NIC, 8 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD for $225 delivered (I bought the RAM and SSD on Amazon).
I can report that this version works fine. Installed 2.3.1, detected everything correctly, runs nicely. The CPU's are hot, 50 C (which is way below intel's spec of 107c but it's warmer than I would like). Enabled High-D w/ adaptive mode but that doesn't change the temp at all (though power usage should be lower). There is a thread here about possible ways to get the freq even lower which may also help. I haven't put a power meter on it yet to see what the electricity usage is. I may put a 120mm case fan to blow air across it to help reduce the temp.
-
mine pfsense box just done the adding 2pcs 8015 cooling, before mod the internal run at 58-60c after added fan system managed to bring down to 48-50c.
-
Hi bro,
i just received my new 4 ports router from chinese seller, had been up and running pfsense 2.3.1 for the pass 4-5 days system was very well no hang no lag. total of 4 ports yet i configured 1WAN and 3 LAN all ports running well. here are the spec. power using external dc12v step down tranformer as can see from the picture
1)intel celeron j1900 @2.0ghz
2)2gb ddr3 so-dimm (able to support up to 8gb)
3)8gb msata ssd
4) 4*intel 82583v Gigabit Ethernet Controller
5)onboard 2 msata slot and 3 sataCan you please post where you got it from/ link to it?
I am also interested from where the op got said hardware.