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.
    • 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.