PfSense with Gigabyte GA-J1900N-D3V
-
This should answer that question. :) This is bare pfSense, no VPN, no proxy, no anything else.
That's about my connection limits (advertised as 100/10), so it (pfSense with this motherboard) can likely go higher. But my connection can't.
-
Just joined the community to give my own two bits on this topic.
I purchased the J1900N-D3V, it came with the F2 bios, and pfSense booted fine with a Nano USB.
Seems to be running okay, operates at 28C average, iperf gets 870Mb/s with CPU below 5%, and hasn't dropped or erred a single packet thus far (according to the logs).
Only issue, is that with certain applications I get a random stutter. Skype for instance, will occasionally stop sending audio/video for a few seconds without actually dropping the call and while continuing to receive audio/video.
I've noticed similar problems with Youtube played over an Xbox, while everything else seems to be fine, including an active Teamspeak server.
My first assumption was to change the firewall optimization to conservative. Sadly this did not seem to resolve the issue.
Anyone have this issue on their installs? My next change will be switching the F2 bios with the F3 mentioned in this thread.
-
Hi,
I was thinking of building a pfSense box with the ga-j1900n-d3v myself too (or, at worst, with the j1900-based Asrock mobos).
For those that already have these in hands (or anyone who knows), could you please help me understand whether this would be a good fit as an addition (most probably within an Antec ISK110 case) ?
http://www.itinstock.com/intel-expi9404ptg2l20-pro1000-pt-quad-port-gigabit-hh-network-adapter-card-14711-p.asp
Thanks in advance
Peppe -
Given the bad rap this board has gotten on esp on the bios front… thought I would say something positive.
I just also bought and replaced an old failed motherboard with the GA-J1900N-D3V. Ordered it via Amazon, put a 2x4GB memory kit in it.
I had to disable the UEFI boot options, but I loaded 2.2.2 64bit on it without an issues once I did.Note that the board came with F3 already installed on it, so I was able to skip some of the pain others have reported.
No stuttering like JWTech reported, but I'll keep an eye on it.
-Bob
-
Just a followup a few days in… it's still working very well. I was certainly nervous about this board given the discussion but it has been working really well, no issues at all.
-Bob
-
They released a new Bios (F4) this month for "Improve USB device compatibility". Has anyone tried it yet? I had to go the MS-DOS Bootable Flash Drive route just to get to F3, and am leery of trying for F4.
-
Finally, do you recommend to use GA-C1037UN-EU (rev2) http://es.gigabyte.com/products/page/mb/ga-c1037un-eurev_20/overview/?
-
I just got my board and I love it!! I am having difficulty with one thing though. Online gaming is giving me a tough time.
I am getting latency spikes while i play. Does anyone have experience with slowness using these boards and gaming? I was trying to tweak settings, but haven't been able to find anything that fixes it.
-
Finally, do you recommend to use GA-C1037UN-EU (rev2) http://es.gigabyte.com/products/page/mb/ga-c1037un-eurev_20/overview/?
Am currently using this board and it works fine no issues at all.
-
What is the power comsumption of this board or the Gigabyte GA-C1037UN-EU running pfSense? Has anyone done any measurements?
-
I bought this board yesterday. Bios F3 was already installed. Installation went smooth, but it can't set IP over DHCP. Latest version of pfsense 2.2.4
Do you guys know any solution, beside adding PCI card, i dont have enough space :-\ -
What is the power comsumption of this board or the Gigabyte GA-C1037UN-EU running pfSense? Has anyone done any measurements?
About 10-15W for ga-j1900n-d3v
-
Just got mine yesterday from http://www.mitxpc.com/ Model# EKGBJ1900M350 I got the 4GB RAM instead of the 2GB. Separately I got a Patriot Blaze 60GB SSD for it as well. Mine came with the F4 BIOS and I was able to boot on USB for nano flash setup as well as boot from external USB CD/DVD for full install on the SSD. Only changes I made to BIOS was turn off splash, turn off Vitalization, and disable Audio. Oh ya, using 2.2.4
I setup a test network on my bench with LAN side having my PC and 1000mb switch, and the WAN side having my NAS and a 1000mb switch. I was able to get 80MB throughput with a PC to NAS samba copy of a 3.4GB ISO. Copying it back from the NAS to PC was also 80MB. CPU got to 33% on both runs.
I did the same copy just using a switch, and no router, between the PC and NAS and I get 113MB. This tells me the bottleneck is not the PC or NAS NICs, Cables, or Switches. With the CPU being at 33% as well on the router I am thinking the Realtek NICs in the router.
I am going to setup a VPN on my bench and test this as well. May not get to that for a few days though.
My goal is to turn this into a UTM.
-
Do you guys know any solution, beside adding PCI card, i dont have enough space
If there is no space how you want to add a card then? Startech are producing PCI and PCIe expander
cases perhaps this would then a choice for you. -
@BlueKobold:
Do you guys know any solution, beside adding PCI card, i dont have enough space
If there is no space how you want to add a card then? Startech are producing PCI and PCIe expander
cases perhaps this would then a choice for you.I don't. I was thinking about some config tweaks. Many people had this issue. Im wondering if anybody was able to solve this problem.
-
Where were you measuring that CPU usage? The figure on the dashboard combines all the cores. You need to use the command line to see the individual core usage:
top -SHYou will probably find one core is at 100%.
Steve
-
Does pfsense not use all the Cores?
-
top-SH show two of the four cores at 100% idle during the transfer. The other two cores bounce around form 20% to 80% idle during the transfer. So the average would be 75% idle, or 25% usage. seeing how i am not able to nail down the numbers on the working cores I think the dashboard lower 30's% is fairly accurate. Am i missing something? Does pfSense use all cores?
-
With the CPU being at 33% as well on the router I am thinking the Realtek NICs in the router.
The realtek NICs can be it, but this is not a must be!
I don't. I was thinking about some config tweaks.
Like the most peoples are thinking. If you owns a mSATA or SSD you could try out to activate
the TRIM support and if you owns a CPU that is capable of TurboBoost mode, you could try out
also setting up or activate the PowerD (highadaptive) mode. But if you go by NanoBSD and owns
a mSATA or SSD it would be better to do a full install.Many people had this issue
.
There is no issue! Your switch is only faster then your router not more but also not less!Im wondering if anybody was able to solve this problem.
Which Problem? Let us both imagine you owns two Intel Core i7 CPUs PCs and using iPerf through the
pfSense router the you will see other numbers and if your pfSense is based on a SG-8860 from the
pfSense store I am really sure you will see once more again other numbers!The test your where doing, is comparing your pfSense router (Layer3) against your switch (Layer2)
and this would be not matching any real life scenario!Does pfsense not use all the Cores?
This is even a bit more or less changing at the moment, in earlier days pfSense was only using one CPU
core at the WAN interface but more CPU core for the rest of the entire system. But the developers got
even many more skills and then this thing will be during a change at the time.But on the other hand it will not change anything for you. If you go by hardware fiddled together by
your own and then the pfSense is not serving the same numbers as your switch this is not pointed to
pfSense, then more at the switch you compared to! If you are using a Intel Xeon E3-1286v3 @3,7GHz
and Intel 10 GBit/s server NICs you will archive total other numbers for sure and then it is not relevant
how many cores was in the game but more from which CPU and on which frequency it was running on. -
Exactly.
In pfSense <2.2X the pf process was giant locked and only ever used a single core so machines with fewer but faster cores were preferred if raw throughput was the aim. Since 2.2 the new multithread capable pf in FreeBSD 10 means this is less of an issue but it still won't spread the load evenly across all the cores. You can't just use the dashboard CPU meter when you start hitting limits.
That said you aren't seeing any cores at 100% so I would also start to suspect the Realtek NICs.Steve
