PFsense 2.3.1 on Intel 1900
-
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.
-
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 8111E
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 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).
