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

    Intel Ethernet Controller I225-LM Support?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    189 Posts 19 Posters 78.1k 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.
    • S
      slk2k @bk150
      last edited by

      @bk150

      Did you have anything in the HW things disabled (Checksum, TSO, LRO)??

      Thanks!

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

        TSO and LRO should be disabled by default anyway.

        @bk150 said in Intel Ethernet Controller I225-LM Support?:

        verified that the disable hardware checksum offloading option was not checked.

        So that's all the offloading option at their defaults should work in 2.6.

        Steve

        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • S
          slk2k @stephenw10
          last edited by

          @stephenw10

          I was curious of his testing. I ran for years with everything enabled using my 2 port Broadcom LOM on my Dell r220. Never a problem. I understand it's against what is recommended, but the Broadcom drivers for my NICs were mature and handled everything correctly without issue.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • B
            bk150 @slk2k
            last edited by

            @slk2k I left everything at the default.

            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              slk2k @bk150
              last edited by

              @bk150

              Awesome - thanks!!

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • S
                silvercharge @silvercharge
                last edited by

                @silvercharge FWIW, in my scenario, I had to ensure that only i225 NICs were installed in a system. If any other NICs, (intel, broadcom, etc.) were installed then the i225 driver would fail to load over 90% of the time. I tested on two distinct systems.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • W
                  whizatit
                  last edited by

                  Eyeing post intently, drooling with anticipation...

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • W
                    whizatit @stephenw10
                    last edited by

                    This post is deleted!
                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • W
                      whizatit @stephenw10
                      last edited by whizatit

                      @stephenw10 said in Intel Ethernet Controller I225-LM Support?:

                      @whizatit said in Intel Ethernet Controller I225-LM Support?:

                      currently running a 1000 Gb connection

                      You're gonna need a big CPU! ๐Ÿ˜œ

                      There is no i225 support in current pfSense. But there will be at some point.

                      Steve
                      I JUST now got that, I feel dumb now thanks lol

                      As for the rest of the post... I'm looking for at least a 2 port 2.5Gb card as internet here is/can/does have that speed for download. The card I originally posted about here just caught my eye. I still have not purchased a 2.5G card as I have seen conflicting information about everyone of them from the traffic graphs not working, cards not supported etc etc...

                      Are there ANY currently working 2.5Gb cards available that are 100% compatible with pfsense? Preferably one with a built on fan as this is not going into a rack server and case fans do not have enough CFM for the most part for a high bandwidth card. No fan no problem i can add one, it would just make it more plug and pray!

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

                        Most of the issues on this thread seem to be from UDP checksum which you can easily disable or run a 2.6 snapshot. We've seen no issues running the i225-V in the 6100.

                        Steve

                        W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • W
                          whizatit @stephenw10
                          last edited by

                          @stephenw10
                          on the 6100? sorry confused.

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

                            4 of the i225-V NICs are used in the Netgate 6100. They work fine there.

                            Steve

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • B
                              bk150
                              last edited by bk150

                              After disabling UDP checksum offloading, my I225-LMs are working great. I'm able to pull ~940 mbit/sec down and ~1100 mbit/sec upload hooked into an AT&T BGW-320. I'm provisioned for gigabit service so the cards seem to be working as expected.

                              J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • J
                                jerseymike @bk150
                                last edited by

                                @bk150 Same here. The outstanding question being, when will the driver get fixed so that HW offloading can be enabled again?

                                B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • B
                                  bk150 @jerseymike
                                  last edited by

                                  @jerseymike it's already fixed in the 2.6.0 development builds :)

                                  I would think the particular fixed could be implemented in the next 2.5.3 release but either way it should be working in 2.6.

                                  J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • J
                                    jerseymike @bk150
                                    last edited by

                                    @bk150 So I guess my next question is...

                                    is 2.6.0 stable enough to use right now? LOL

                                    B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • B
                                      bk150 @jerseymike
                                      last edited by

                                      @jerseymike I guess it depends on your use case. I definitely wouldn't use it in production at a business but for home use, depends on how understanding your family members are ๐Ÿ˜„

                                      I don't see any issue with using 2.5.2 with the UDP checksum hardware offloading disabled as my understanding is that it's still doing the UDP checksum, it's just in software instead of running on the network controller hardware itself. I would think this is sufficient for most cases as high loads of UDP traffic is pretty rare.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • W
                                        whizatit
                                        last edited by

                                        Ok so thats f***** up it works in their own appliance but not public release? Stingy holding out on us lol. Not being mean just saying...

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

                                          It was just unfortunate timing. We had a bunch of cool fixes for things in the 2.5.2 branch, including this. We had to eventually build 2.5.2 on the 2.5.0 branch because it was going to take too long to get everything fixed and tested when there were security patches ready to go. ๐Ÿ˜ž

                                          I have 2.6 running on a bunch of things without issue but there are still some outstanding things, most notably captive portal. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/12217
                                          That may be fixed in tomorrows snap though.

                                          But check the list and decide for yourself:
                                          https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/issues?query_id=106

                                          Steve

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                          • W
                                            whizatit
                                            last edited by whizatit

                                            I am soooo damn slow... I just now realized your an admin and work with Netgate lol. Thanks for the heads up sir!

                                            I'm just like everyone else, WE want "the" answer or answers and don't pay attention to everything else/details.

                                            Goes to show READ EVERYTHING BEFORE doing ANYTHING!

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