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

    2.1 being multicore?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    6 Posts 4 Posters 2.5k 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.
    • J
      jaredadams
      last edited by

      I thought I read on here sometime ago that 2.1 will have multi core support.  I know currently it is only single core with some of the packages able to utilize extra cores.

      Will 2.1 have REAL multicore support?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cmb
        last edited by

        PF is still giant locked and will be for the next couple releases at least. Maybe in 2013. It's inconsequential in nearly all usage cases of firewalls, load on numerous other things is spread, hence unless you're talking pushing 10+ Gbps where you're going to hit scalability limits there is no difference.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          jaredadams
          last edited by

          @cmb:

          It's inconsequential in nearly all usage cases of firewalls, load on numerous other things is spread, hence unless you're talking pushing 10+ Gbps where you're going to hit scalability limits there is no difference.

          I wouldnt necessarily say that.  Multicore support would allow us to run much lower powered systems.  As of right now throughput is tied directly to CPU frequency.  Which also means power consumption and, more importantly, heat is tied directly to it as well.

          Its a shame that an older 95W 3.0ghz Pentium 4 which is extremely notorious for heat will perform better than even a C2D, C2Q, or even a Xeon whos clock is <= to it.

          Id like to focus more on harnessing the power thats available with the Atom's and the i3's.  i3's idle power consumption is very close to that of an Atom.  i3's is where its at.  Lower power consumption.  Power on demand.  And at a price point that really isnt much more than the Atom platform to begin with.  While the i3 is a far better cpu than the aforementioned Pentium 4, you really arent seing much of a benefit while using it in a single threaded application.

          See where I'm going with this?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • N
            nexusN
            last edited by

            Sorry to say but I just know the routing can only utilize a single core, is it?
            Though directly linked routing performance on CPU clock imposed a weird performance comparison on very old models CPUs and a competent Atom/Sandy Bridge,
            current CPUs even an Atom can route 500Mbps+, may I know what would your concerns be for utilization of more cores for throughput? ???

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              Supermule Banned
              last edited by

              Scalability :)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                cmb
                last edited by

                @jaredadams:

                Its a shame that an older 95W 3.0ghz Pentium 4 which is extremely notorious for heat will perform better than even a C2D, C2Q, or even a Xeon whos clock is <= to it.

                Not true in the least, CPU performance is no longer tied to its frequency. The better performing the CPU, the more it can push. A C2D/C2Q/etc. is MUCH faster than an old P4 even though they have lower clock rate.

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