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

    New Alix board for 2013

    Hardware
    69
    265
    200.1k
    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.
    • nesenseN
      nesense
      last edited by

      When you find the time it would be great if you could do some performance tests, like NAT / Routing performance with or without traffic shaping.

      using iperf to test throughput, default values, traffic shaper DISABLED:

      TCP window size:  129 KByte (default)
      –----------------------------------------------------------
      [  4] local 192.168.10.10 port 59068 connected with 192.168.10.1 port 5001
      [ ID] Interval      Transfer    Bandwidth
      [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  388 MBytes  326 Mbits/sec

      Traffic shaper ENABLED using HFSC on 2 LAN and 1 WAN (voip + all p2p protocols + all network games + some other applications):

      –----------------------------------------------------------
      Client connecting to 192.168.10.1, TCP port 5001
      TCP window size:  129 KByte (default)

      [  4] local 192.168.10.10 port 59150 connected with 192.168.10.1 port 5001
      [ ID] Interval      Transfer    Bandwidth
      [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  336 MBytes  282 Mbits/sec

      will test using netio next.

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

        How are you testing that? A throughput test is what's needed, iperf running on two separate machine not on the pfSense box.
        326Mbps seems disappointingly slow.  :-\

        Steve

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • nesenseN
          nesense
          last edited by

          @stephenw10:

          How are you testing that? A throughput test is what's needed, iperf running on two separate machine not on the pfSense box.
          326Mbps seems disappointingly slow.  :-\

          Steve

          i'm running iperf server on pfsense and client directly connected to it through 1gbit ethernet macbook port

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

            Ah, well not test that really gives a useful figure because that doesn't represent a normal firewall/routing situation. You need to run the server on a separate machine connected to a different interface to get a useful comparable figure.

            Steve

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • nesenseN
              nesense
              last edited by

              @stephenw10:

              Ah, well not test that really gives a useful figure because that doesn't represent a normal firewall/routing situation. You need to run the server on a separate machine connected to a different interface to get a useful comparable figure.

              Steve

              you mean put a switch for example between pfsense running on APU board and the laptop instead of pfsense <–> laptop?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • A
                athurdent
                last edited by

                Nesense, thanks for your efforts!
                A good test scenario would be something like this I think:

                [Laptop (192.168.10.10)] - [LAN Interface (192.168.10.1) - ALIX - WAN Interface (1.1.1.1)] - [iperf server (1.1.1.2)]
                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • nesenseN
                  nesense
                  last edited by

                  @athurdent:

                  Nesense, thanks for your efforts!
                  A good test scenario would be something like this I think:

                  [Laptop (192.168.10.10)] - [LAN Interface (192.168.10.1) - ALIX - WAN Interface (1.1.1.1)] - [iperf server (1.1.1.2)]

                  No problem, I'm interested to know how well it performs too  ;D

                  Sadly I can't do such a test right now since my WAN interface is running on 100MBIT and my other computer has its monitor at repair, i'll try to borrow a second laptop or something to do throughput tests ASAP.

                  BTW the thermal sensors aren't working.

                  Any idea how I can get the WLE200NX wifi card to work on pfsense? it uses the AR9280 Atheros chipset, there's this thread http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=55403.0 that mentions FreeBSD 9.x drivers working with it and that they're already on pfsense 2.1 but i'm still having issues.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • nesenseN
                    nesense
                    last edited by

                    here's a picture of the board:

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

                      Do you have some way to measure power consumption of the board?

                      For comparison, I measured the 2D13 at 3W AC idle through a reasonably efficient 12V power supply. Although IIRC it didn't change under load either, my meter doesn't have decimal resolution.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • nesenseN
                        nesense
                        last edited by

                        @watercooled:

                        Do you have some way to measure power consumption of the board?

                        For comparison, I measured the 2D13 at 3W AC idle through a reasonably efficient 12V power supply. Although IIRC it didn't change under load either, my meter doesn't have decimal resolution.

                        Document says 6 to 12W depending on CPU load. This is using the T40N CPU with a 9W TDP. plan is to change to T40E with a 6W TDP.

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

                          The documentation claims about 5W DC for the existing Geode platform though, and I measured lower than that AC, so I was wondering if measured power could again be lower.

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

                            Some of those plug-in power meters claim an amazing accuracy. However if you look at the cost if genuinely accurate power meters it's hard to believe. That's especially true for switching power supplies. It wouldn't surprise me to find they misread by a few Watts at very low power levels.

                            Steve

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • nesenseN
                              nesense
                              last edited by

                              BTW it also states that PoE is not supported and never will for the APU board.

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

                                @stephenw10:

                                Some of those plug-in power meters claim an amazing accuracy. However if you look at the cost if genuinely accurate power meters it's hard to believe. That's especially true for switching power supplies. It wouldn't surprise me to find they misread by a few Watts at very low power levels.

                                Steve

                                I've found mine to be reasonably accurate (it's not a cheap one), allowing for rounding without any decimals of course, and it does account for PF for instance. But I will try to get around to measuring DC draw.

                                It's not like consumer meters are £1000 worth of kit either.

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

                                  Well exactly. My meter was ~£30 and seems to work OK. It measures Watts and VA so I guess it allows for powerfactor but it's clearly not true RMS so I doubt it reads 'spiky' waveforms too well. I still use it though because it gives me a good idea of what's drawing power and if I reduce that. Just keep in mind that real power meters that have 0.01% accuracy are, as you say, many thousands of £/$.

                                  Anyway 6W is low enough for me.  :)

                                  Steve

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

                                    OK here are some DC measurements from my 2D13 for comparison.

                                    Voltage set at 12.0V
                                    Idle: 0.28A 3.36W
                                    ~60Mb/s download (speedtest): 0.34A 4.08W
                                    Max CPU, achieved with

                                    dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null

                                    or burnMMX: fluctuating between 0.37 and 0.39A 4.44-4.68W

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

                                      Nice.  :)
                                      I'm certainly prepared to believe those measurements, assuming the psu holds 12V well enough.  ;)

                                      How many Watts do you think are lost in the PSU, it's efficiency?
                                      Given the small variation in power, 5W max, perhaps the supplied psu is still highly efficient at 3.36W.
                                      Pure speculation time: I would expect to see perhaps 0.25-0.5W loss in the PSU in which case I would hope an AC side power meter should read 4W (if it doesn't display fractions of a Watt).

                                      User phil.davis could tell us a lot about the power consumption of the old Alix board since a lot of his sites are solar powered.

                                      Steve

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

                                        Yeah I was using a bench power supply and double-checked voltage and current with a couple of multimeters.

                                        The PSU I normally use, and did the AC measurements with, is a 60W FSP one which I also use to supply some other network kit (I've also measured with some 12W PSUs with the same results IIRC). It's efficiency level V so >87% average efficiency, although the points for that average are measured at 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent load, so it may not be that efficient at <10% load.

                                        Either way, you're likely correct the AC meter should be displaying 4W. The resolution isn't ideal for measuring this low TBF, but it's ballpark accurate at least. Even being less than half a Watt out and clipping the decimals rather than rounding up could explain why it displays 3.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • nesenseN
                                          nesense
                                          last edited by

                                          I ran iperf again, this time using two computers connected to the board on individual port, all running 1000baseT, iperf server on a windows 8.1 box, and client on macbook laptop running os x 10.7.5, only running squid on pfsense 2.1, here are the results:

                                          –----------------------------------------------------------
                                          Server listening on TCP port 5001
                                          TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)

                                          [  4] local 192.168.10.11 port 5001 connected with 192.168.20.11 port 49272
                                          [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  539 MBytes  452 Mbits/sec

                                          Using netio:

                                          NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.32
                                          (C) 1997-2012 Kai Uwe Rommel

                                          UDP server listening.
                                          TCP server listening.
                                          UDP connection established …
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  1k ...  21.98 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  1k ...  184.75 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  2k ...  4.16 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  2k ...  263.60 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  4k ...  0 Byte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  4k ...  428.63 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  8k ...  403.75 KByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  8k ...  567.76 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size 16k ...  203.54 KByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size 16k ...  746.44 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size 32k ...  0 Byte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size 32k ...  913.70 MByte/s
                                          Done.

                                          TCP connection established …
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  1k ...  28.91 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  1k ...  30.98 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  2k ...  23.72 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  2k ...  23.23 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  4k ...  33.43 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  4k ...  43.70 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size  8k ...  23.25 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size  8k ...  46.61 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size 16k ...  31.16 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size 16k ...  47.44 MByte/s
                                          Receiving from client, packet size 32k ...  14.18 MByte/s
                                          Sending to client, packet size 32k ...  47.83 MByte/s
                                          Done.

                                          Looks like I need something other than the crappy Macbook to test with  :-\

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

                                            Nice!  :)
                                            If you run 'top -SH' on the apu board what does the cpu usage look like during that test?

                                            Not sure how netio is measuring that udp speed but most of those numbers are far higher than you could get down a gigabit connection so it looks like it's buffering somewhere.

                                            Steve

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post