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

    PC engines board for build

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    21 Posts 10 Posters 2.3k 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.
    • JailerJ
      Jailer
      last edited by

      @maddy_in65:

      Anyone bought directly from PC engine site, how much time they will take ship it.

      About 3 weeks last time I ordered one.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • GilG
        Gil Rebel Alliance
        last edited by

        Just check the bios version, there are a few threads on this forum about it.
        Version 4.0.7 is suggested and I have found it to be reliable.
        Newer bios versions may be experimental.  ;)

        11 cheers for binary

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R
          Rainmaker
          last edited by

          I ran an APU2C4 for nearly 2 years. My ISP/WAN connection is 380/20, and pfSense ran perfectly without any issues. There is some tuning you can do (search for the APU thread), but it's a very solid option. You'll have no issues on the APU up until over around 500Mbps (WAN > LAN). After that you'd be better installing IPFire or some other Linux distro. On a gigabit connection, an APU2C4 running pfSense will cap out around 540Mbps but a Linux based distro will do gigabit wirespeed. Below 500Mbps they're equal and pfSense has many more features, so I'd recommend it entirely.

          WAN: 380/22 cable
          Box: pfSense 2.4.3-RELEASE
          Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 2c4t @ 3.5Ghz
          Asrock mITX motherboard & pico PSU
          4GB DDR4 RAM
          60GB mSATA
          2x Intel NIC (i210, 219v 1Gbps)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • gtjG
            gtj
            last edited by

            Hello,

            I got an APU2C4 a few months now and although I'm satisfied, it limits my WAN speed to around 50Mbps. My provider tops at around 90 when not using PIA.

            I have a Voyo V1 with an Intel N4200, GBitE and USB 3.0 interfaces.
            Provided that I'm going to add a Trendnet USB 3.0 gigabit interface as a 2nd NIC, am I going to benefit using that build over my APU2C4? The N4200 seems to be higher clocked and also supports AES-NI as well.

            If not,, what hardware would you suggest in order for me to be able to utilise my IP's full speed?

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

              That's 50Mbps over OpenVPN I assume?  Because otherwise anything could do more than that.

              Steve

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • gtjG
                gtj
                last edited by

                @stephenw10:

                That's 50Mbps over OpenVPN I assume?  Because otherwise anything could do more than that.

                Steve

                Yes Steve. I should have been more clear.
                50mbps over OpenVPN. With PIA turned off, of course, it doesn't have any problem to get me the full speed of my provider.

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

                  50Mbps Ovpn is still pretty slow. I would think you could get more than that from the APU2 with some tuning.

                  Steve

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • gtjG
                    gtj
                    last edited by

                    @stephenw10:

                    50Mbps Ovpn is still pretty slow. I would think you could get more than that from the APU2 with some tuning.

                    Steve

                    Hi Steve,

                    Do you have any suggestion/tweaks I should try?

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

                      At a minimum enable FastIO and increase the send/receive buffers to 512K. Those are both gui options now in 2.4.X.

                      Steve

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • gtjG
                        gtj
                        last edited by

                        @stephenw10:

                        At a minimum enable FastIO and increase the send/receive buffers to 512K. Those are both gui options now in 2.4.X.

                        Steve

                        Will try as soon as I reach home and will report back.

                        Thanks Steve!

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • GilG
                          Gil Rebel Alliance
                          last edited by

                          iperf testing the OpenVPN I got around 85Mbps without any additional tuning.

                          11 cheers for binary

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • gtjG
                            gtj
                            last edited by

                            @stephenw10:

                            At a minimum enable FastIO and increase the send/receive buffers to 512K. Those are both gui options now in 2.4.X.

                            Steve

                            Well, I changed the settings you suggested and now it hits the full potential of my IP!
                            Thank you so much Steve!  8)

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

                              Yes I would have expected more without any tuning but it is very dependent on link latency among all the other variables that affect measured speed.

                              Anyway glad you're seeing more now. ;)

                              Steve

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • gtjG
                                gtj
                                last edited by

                                @stephenw10:

                                Yes I would have expected more without any tuning but it is very dependent on link latency among all the other variables that affect measured speed.

                                Anyway glad you're seeing more now. ;)

                                Steve

                                The thing is that it works brilliant now and I can take advatage of my full IP's speed. Ping times seem also to be lower.They went down to 17ms from 21.

                                This came at about the right timing when I had started to feel disappointed with my PC Engines board.

                                Thanks again :)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • S
                                  Stugots
                                  last edited by

                                  Another reason to avoid the APU3's is that the they all use the i211 Intel NIC's and the APU2C4 uses the i210 which has some advantages over the i211.  Can't remember the exact difference, sorry.

                                  I'm using an APU2C4 with a 100/10MBit connection without any problems at all.  I'm using IPSEC for VPN.

                                  PC Engines APU2C4

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • V
                                    VAMike
                                    last edited by

                                    @acascianelli:

                                    Another reason to avoid the APU3's is that the they all use the i211 Intel NIC's and the APU2C4 uses the i210 which has some advantages over the i211.  Can't remember the exact difference, sorry.

                                    i210 supports wake on lan and baseboard management. I think one NIC on the APU2 may support WoL, baseboard management isn't implemented. So yes, if you need WoL, the APU2 may be a better choice (if it's working), otherwise they're the same.

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