PfSense with Axiomtek NA341 Board



  • Hi guys,

    I am planing to buy Axiomtek NA341 single board computer with 4 LAN ports, but I am not sure if pfSense will be working fine with.
    Any one tested this board before and has expertise ?

    thx


  • Banned

    @ASGH:

    Any one tested this board before

    Errrr…



  • Oops! I didn't notice that.
    But from the available spec, does it seem to be suitable with pfSense?


  • Banned

    @ASGH:

    Oops! I didn't notice that.
    But from the available spec, does it seem to be suitable with pfSense?

    Looking at the datasheet and this Intel driver page and FreeBSD 9.1 release notes, I'd definitely wait till someone confirms that the NICs actually work with 8.3



  • @doktornotor:

    Looking at the datasheet and this Intel driver page and FreeBSD 9.1 release notes, I'd definitely wait till someone confirms that the NICs actually work with 8.3

    I would also be wary about the LAN bypass relays. From the datasheet I would guess some hardware needs to be tickled frequently to stop the relays bypassing the NIC(s). Maybe that function can be disabled in the BIOS. I don't know of any "standard" FreeBSD software for dealing with the relays.



  • I had got confirmation from the provider that they tested FreeBSD9.1 in this board.


  • Banned

    @ASGH:

    I had got confirmation from the provider that they tested FreeBSD9.1 in this board.

    Well yes; sadly 2.1RC is using 8.3 (the stable version is using 8.1).


  • Netgate Administrator

    Whilst 8.3 release does not have i210 drivers 2.1RC has patches from 8-stable that are far more recent and reference the i210 chip.

    https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense-tools/tree/master/patches/RELENG_8_3/from-8-STABLE/e1000

    Steve


  • Banned

    @stephenw10:

    Whilst 8.3 release does not have i210 drivers 2.1RC has patches from 8-stable that are far more recent and reference the i210 chip.

    These e1000 patches have been pulled.


  • Netgate Administrator

    Ah yes, I did read JimP's post on that. I'd be surprised if they didn't make it in sooner or later though. The i210 is going to be very common (already is?) support for it is going to be required at some point.

    Steve



  • I wonder how much it will cost?



  • @RAND0M1ZER:

    I wonder how much it will cost?

    If I had to guess, somewhere around $650, not including wireless, WWAN, the bypass option, RAM, or a boot disk.



  • @Jason:

    @RAND0M1ZER:

    I wonder how much it will cost?

    If I had to guess, somewhere around $650, not including wireless, WWAN, the bypass option, RAM, or a boot disk.

    Guess there not planning on selling any …... LMAO



  • @Clear-Pixel:

    @Jason:

    @RAND0M1ZER:

    I wonder how much it will cost?

    If I had to guess, somewhere around $650, not including wireless, WWAN, the bypass option, RAM, or a boot disk.

    Guess there not planning on selling any …... LMAO

    Soekris sells of ton of the net6501 systems.  The 1.6GHz single core + case is almost $500 and this is considerably more powerful.



  • This board is cheaper than Soekris, it is around 270 USD.


  • Netgate Administrator

    Hmm, good price if it really sells for that.

    Steve



  • How well with that thing perform with a full install and packages?  You know…  VPN, SNORT, bunch of rules.  GB network etc?


  • Netgate Administrator

    Same as any Atom powered board. Not good compared to a quad core i5 but much better than the current Alix. There are plenty of people who don't need loads of packages or 1Gbps throughput. Anyone with a 100-150Mbps WAN would do well with this I would think.

    Steve



  • If it gets down to $150 I might call it a good deal.  Thats a pretty old CPU for me to be throwing big dollars at it.  Its basically the same thing thats in my acer aspire that I bought for $100 a year ago for my wife to travel with (vs an IPAD).  It was considered dated tech at that time.



  • @kejianshi:

    If it gets down to $150 I might call it a good deal.  Thats a pretty old CPU for me to be throwing big dollars at it.  Its basically the same thing thats in my acer aspire that I bought for $100 a year ago for my wife to travel with (vs an IPAD).  It was considered dated tech at that time.

    Actually, that Atom is pretty much perfect.  It's one of the best Atom chips Intel ever released.  Very good power-to-speed ratio since it's TDP is only 3.5W.  Look at all the other CPU's it beats.
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+N2600+%40+1.60GHz

    And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_N2600#.22Cedarview.22_.2832_nm.29_2

    I hope pfSense (FreeBSD) supports it.  Looks like a great choice for a firewall.



  • I've got a couple of Cedarview atom based boxes here and there that I like.  They make for solid boxes that you can abandon and ignore but those are not for personal use.  I'm here at home enough that having a fan in the box isn't the end of the world for me.  Those boxes also don't run any packages at all other than a base install and VPNs.  Not necessarily because they couldn't but because they have to work, so less is more.



  • @valnar:

    Actually, that Atom is pretty much perfect.  It's one of the best Atom chips Intel ever released.  Very good power-to-speed ratio since it's TDP is only 3.5W.  Look at all the other CPU's it beats.

    Check this list
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
    Don't even use Search, just check the bottom of the list.

    I like it, but if they want to sell it the price must be reasonable for such slow CPU.



  • I have weird opinions about what I use for myself.  Here at home I chose the AMD 4800+ box to be my router not because of specs necessarily, although it does run circles around the best/newest atom boards I've worked with.  I used my AMD because that board and PSU have been in use here for many many years and time has proven this particular box to be reliable.  I trust old hardware that I've been using for ages more than a new build that I've not tested with time and use, regardless of spec.  I do think this board would probably be good for people who needed reliability more than absolute throughput, but it is about $20 worth of silicon and plastic.  Hopefully they won't get pricey with it.


  • Banned

    @tirsojrp:

    such slow CPU.

    The CPU is more than sufficient for loads of people. Except those who just cannot resist to make their boxes crawl by implementing things such as snort.  :P



  • Agreed.



  • @doktornotor:

    @tirsojrp:

    such slow CPU.

    The CPU is more than sufficient for loads of people. Except those who just cannot resist to make their boxes crawl by implementing things such as snort.  :P

    Just some basics on IDS/IPS

    Firewalls aren't enough to keep some networks safe. Intrusion detection adds another layer of security.

    http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/security/security-features/32141-intrusion-detection-basics



  • I have a Jetway JBC362 with the same CPU and I am aware that the CPU is enough for some tasks.

    In fact I might get 5 of them (NA341) if the reviews are positive and the price is right.



  • Yeah - Its a matter of more than spec.  One of my biggest gripes with all things Intel is they rape the public.  You could call it a function of capitalism but its still gouging.  They for sure make the best stuff, but its not sooooooooooo much better to justify their prices.  They are simply too proud of their stuff.  Price per performance definitely goes to AMD big time even with Intel's tech lead.  However, if you are made of money, Intel is the obvious choice.



  • Even in single threaded mode, any Atom will perform an order of magnitude faster than a Geode LX800 processor.  While there is no Passmark score for the older Geode, reports of people on this forum and elsewhere show about 3x improvement in raw throughput..  For those of us where the ALIX board was just on the edge of being useless, that's a nice bump with some extra overhead.

    If they can get the (total) power consumption down to under 10 watts, that'll be worth it.  If it has the same 25-30 watt consumption of regular Atom boards, it'll be a non-starter as it might require active cooling.



  • Well, then it will be less than I said.  Soekris is expensive but he fills a niche…  If there's more competition in that area then prices will drop.



  • Does the Atom have the new cryptogryphy routines built into the CPU like the new AMDs and Some Intel chips? 
    I Don't see it in my list…  AES-NI

    Geode supports AES hardware acceleration.  How does it compare to a new Atom while crunching AES without the aid of add-on crypt boards?

    (I'm sure the Atom is a generally better platformer, just asking this one use.  It would have been great to get AES-NI on Atom)


  • Netgate Administrator

    The Atom will likely be good for ~50Mbps of OpenVPN (AES128). The Alix does ~20Mbps IPSec (AES128). Not directly comparable but gives you an idea.

    Steve



  • Yeah - Thats a tad bit better.



  • Hi,
    I bought this board and I followed the tutorial for embedded computers. I wrote the .img with physdiskwrite but after boot nothing else appear using the console. Using vga I see only colored chars. Any advice will be great, thanks


  • Netgate Administrator

    Exactly which image did you write?

    Is the VGA connector internal? Did it come with a header cable?

    Do you see the see the bios output on either the serial console or vga?

    Steve



  • I have a 4 GB CF Card

    I tried both pfSense-memstick-2.1-RELEASE-i386.img  and    pfSense-memstick-serial-2.1-RELEASE-i386.img

    I connected the monitor using vga cable ( the board comes with integrated VGA connector )

    I also set same settings ( bts / seconnd ) in bios, serial port adapter and client. I see how appliance boots, I can navigate on bios and that's all

    Thank you


  • Banned

    For CF, you should use nanobsd (or nanobsd_vga), not memstick.



  • sorry, I was in a hurry
    pfSense-2.1.1-RELEASE-4g-i386-nanobsd.img
    pfSense-2.1.1-RELEASE-4g-i386-nanobsd_vga.img

    I followed this tutorial too : https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/HOWTO_Install_pfSense
    I replaced config file ( .xml ) but nothing, same results


  • Netgate Administrator

    Hmm, I'm missing something. You were able to replace the config.xml file? How did you do that? The box had booted pfSense or you mounted the card in a BSD machine?
    If you are getting to the end of the POST messages from the BIOS and then you see nothing from either image on either the VGA or console port then the most likely cause is that the images are not writing to the card correctly. Do you see any errors when writing the image? You could try using the 2GB images instead to ensure they are fitting on the card.

    Steve



  • Shows me the boot menu F1, F2, and then the message:  "/".

    Should be fine if I follow the documentation -
    https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Installing_pfSense
    "If everything is configured correctly you should see the kernel beginning to load. At systems with VGA the output will stop displaying a "/" at the screen. From that point on all output is at COM1. Please check the bootup process there by using a null modemcable and a terminal program."

    This is the last message I have seen on both monitor and serial ( HyperTerminal, Putty )

    On writeing the img to CF i had no error messages


Log in to reply