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

    HP T5740 gigabit over PCIx

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    26 Posts 4 Posters 12.2k 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.
    • W
      w1ll1am
      last edited by

      Hello everyone,

      So I have been using a HP thin client as a pfsense box for my local network for a couple years now. The box I am using doesn't have SATA so i have been running embedded on a USB flash drive. This has been working quite well however I would like to have the features that a full install of pfsense offers.

      I received two HP T5740 thin clients for free from work and I have decided to switch over to this for pfsense. http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13496_na/13496_na.PDF

      These boxes are sweet, up to 4gig ddr3 intel atom 1.6Ghz and they have a SATA port, and a place for a wireless card (any recommendations?)

      So this is the hardware I have.
      Intel NIC -  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-D35034-004-IBM-Quad-Port-Pro-1000-GT-4-Port-PCI-X-NIC-03N5446-/191209774058?pt=US_Internal_Network_Cards&hash=item2c84fd9bea
      HP T5740
      HDD - WD black 160gb
      RAM - 2 gig ( might upgrade to 4, why not)

      I have been using an Intel PCIx 2 port NIC on my previous hardware without problems. However I am concerned about using the PCIx card in a PCI slot.

      Questions
      There will be some bandwidth loss I am sure, but will I get gigabit speeds? Does the thin client even have the power to do that?
      Is there a better solution for 4 port NIC or 3? I would like to have WAN, LAN, LAN2, and an extra for playing maybe second WAN some day.

      Thanks!

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

        The pdf you linked to refers to both PCIe and PCI expansion, are you sure yours is PCI?

        The wifi expansion looks to be via a half length mini-PCIe slot, is that right?

        Steve

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

          From the PDF it looks like the T5740 has a PCIe(xpress) "x4" slot.  Did you misread that?

          If the IBM card is PCIx(tended) it won't go in the HP.  Better to pick up a used HP NC360T (2-port) or NC364T (4-port) but the latter may generate some heat.  Looks like a low-profile slot in the machine, though, so make sure you get the right bracket with the NIC.

          EDIT:  Maybe the machine has both PCIe and PCI edge connectors inside.  (The brackets face opposite directions, so that's possible.)

          PCIx may work in the PCI slot (I can't remember stuff like that) but it would still be better to use a PCIe slot for a 2-port or 4-port NIC.

          EDIT 2:  Just noticed a bit of fine print in the spec sheet:

          8 The PCIe/PCI Expansion Module should not be used if the HP 16GB SATA module is installed.

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

            Now I see how they do it:

            http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01925235&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&product=3996165#N395

            Looks like your IBM card is a full length (64-bit) PCIx and the riser is only PCI.  Not sure that will work.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • W
              w1ll1am
              last edited by

              Thanks for all of the replies. So I will try to clarify some things. I purchased this http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-T5740-Thin-Client-AZ551AA-PCI-Express-Expansion-Module-Chassis-581264-002-/231113076021?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35cf69ad35

              It comes with two different cards the black one which is what is on the board so basically it is just a raiser/right angle.
              Then it comes with an adapter which makes it just PCI. ( I attached pictures of both )

              So in my current set up I am using a flash drive as a drive and I have a PCI (white) right angle adapter with a PCIx 2 port intel NIC installed. It has been working great for two years. So I know that the adapter SHOULD work.

              I didn't see the thing in the PDF about the PCI slot and the SATA not being used together. Thanks for pointing that out. That is a little concerning, but I'll see what happens.

              The wireless card is a half height slot, I found an intel wireless NIC (not sure the model) and put it in there I'll see how it does.

              I will post back with updates, should be getting the expansion module this weekend.

              Additional notes: I said in my original post that I got two of these T5740 thin clients. The first one I am using as a remote VNC box that I can ssh tunnel into from work and access everything/ browse the internet. I am using a 2.5" HDD in it which it is not designed for and it has been fine. Not using the PCI slot however.

              pci_module_with_card.JPG
              pci_module_with_card.JPG_thumb
              PCI_card.JPG
              PCI_card.JPG_thumb

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

                Since the expansion module has PCIe capability you might consider just using a PCIe NIC instead. Obviously you've already got the quad port PCI-X card so that would be additional cost. You might as well try the PCI-X NIC and see how it goes. Like you said it should work fine in a PCI slot just with limited bandwidth. That shouldn't be much of an issue either since the Atom in that box won't do much more than 500Mbps anyway.

                Steve

                Edit: Typo

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • W
                  w1ll1am
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10:

                  Since the expansion module has PCIe capability you might consider just using a PCIe NIC instead. Obviously you've already got the quad port PCI-X card so that would be additional cost. You might as well try the PCI-X NIC and see how it goes. Like you said it should work fine in a PCI slot just with limited bandwidth. That should be much of an issue either since the Atom in that box won't do much more than 500Mbps anyway.

                  Steve

                  The dual port PCIe NIC biggsy mentioned is only $25ish on ebay so I will look into that. I got the 4 port that I have now for like $12 so it isn't that big of a deal.

                  The two cards that biggsy mentioned HP NC360T (2-port) or NC364T (4-port) are not in the freeBSD hardware list should I be concerned about that?

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

                    There are many cards that are supported by virtue of having a supported chipset but aren't mentioned specifically. Check the forum, someone will have tried it.

                    Steve

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • W
                      w1ll1am
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10:

                      There are many cards that are supported by virtue of having a supported chipset but aren't mentioned specifically. Check the forum, someone will have tried it.

                      Steve

                      Okay great thanks. Like I said I will post back with details and pictures after the build. Thanks for all the help.

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

                        Ah!  I didn't get there were both PCIe and PCI-X risers.

                        I agree with Steve - given that you have the IBM card, try that first.

                        I'm pretty sure the HP NC36xT cards are rebranded Intel cards.  They use an 82571EB chipset in the NC360 and 2 x  82571GB in the NC364.

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

                          For some reason this project got me interested and I did a bit of research today.

                          Your IBM card is a 3.3V 64-bit PCI-X.  The riser with the white connector is a 5V 32-bit PCI .

                          So I don't think you'll have much joy there, unless you feel like going down this path.  Of course, you could just end up frying the card.

                          Overall the PCIe riser and dual-port NC360T might be easier and quicker.

                          Good luck and please let us know the outcome.

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

                            Ah, of course. I always forget about the voltage!  ::) I guess it's so infrequently something that you have to worry about these days. Filing out the 3.3V notch seems pretty extreme to me. In the worst case you could damage both the card and the motherboard doing that.

                            Steve

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • W
                              w1ll1am
                              last edited by

                              Well lol I got everything over the weekend and I did cut out the notch. That had been my plan the entire time never even thought about it really causing a problem. So unfortunately I don't have pictures at the moment but I will try to get some today. It was an extremely tight fit. I was able to get the HDD (XBox 360 20 gig), 4 port Intel NIC and wireless intel NIC all installed and all was recognized. Everything has been up and running since Saturday. Not sure what I am going to do with the wireless card kind of put it in just because I could. I am only using 2 of the 4 ports on the card at the moment so not sure how it will act once I use them all.

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

                                Nice. A good result all round then.  :)
                                Post some throughput numbers if you do any testing, always useful.

                                Steve

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • W
                                  w1ll1am
                                  last edited by

                                  @stephenw10:

                                  Nice. A good result all round then.  :)
                                  Post some throughput numbers if you do any testing, always useful.

                                  Steve

                                  I have Time Warner Cable internet I am paying for 15 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. I didn't test the upload but I did a test on IPv6 and IPv4 below are the results. The IPv6 is slower.

                                  IPv4
                                  [2.1.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.scanlon]/root(4): fetch -o /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
                                  /dev/null                                    100% of  100 MB 1713 kBps 00m00s

                                  IPv6
                                  [2.1.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.scanlon]/root(5): fetch -o /dev/null http://ipv6.download.thinkbroadband.com/100MB.zip
                                  /dev/null                                    100% of  100 MB 1343 kBps 00m00s

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

                                    That's really just limited by your WAN speed then. A more interesting test would be between two internal interfaces, both on the PCI-X card.

                                    Steve

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • W
                                      w1ll1am
                                      last edited by

                                      @stephenw10:

                                      That's really just limited by your WAN speed then. A more interesting test would be between two internal interfaces, both on the PCI-X card.

                                      Steve

                                      I was looking at ways to test that. I came across iperf so I am going to try it out later. I will post my results

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • W
                                        w1ll1am
                                        last edited by

                                        iperf results (This is between a client and pfsense) I am doing this remotely so I only have access to pfsense and the client I am typing on now.

                                        Pfsense was the server.

                                        TCP test

                                         iperf -c 192.168.1.1 -t 20 -w 100k -P 20
                                        

                                        Output

                                        
                                        [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
                                        [  6]  0.0-20.0 sec  40.8 MBytes  17.1 Mbits/sec
                                        [  7]  0.0-20.0 sec  34.6 MBytes  14.5 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 12]  0.0-20.0 sec  34.6 MBytes  14.5 Mbits/sec
                                        [  5]  0.0-20.0 sec  36.2 MBytes  15.2 Mbits/sec
                                        [  4]  0.0-20.0 sec  41.4 MBytes  17.3 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 17]  0.0-20.1 sec  36.9 MBytes  15.4 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 20]  0.0-20.0 sec  43.6 MBytes  18.3 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 16]  0.0-20.1 sec  37.9 MBytes  15.8 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 22]  0.0-20.1 sec  35.5 MBytes  14.8 Mbits/sec
                                        [  9]  0.0-20.1 sec  37.0 MBytes  15.4 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 19]  0.0-20.1 sec  40.2 MBytes  16.8 Mbits/sec
                                        [  8]  0.0-20.1 sec  34.6 MBytes  14.4 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 13]  0.0-20.1 sec  41.9 MBytes  17.4 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 10]  0.0-20.2 sec  41.4 MBytes  17.2 Mbits/sec
                                        [  3]  0.0-20.2 sec  40.6 MBytes  16.9 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 15]  0.0-20.2 sec  40.0 MBytes  16.6 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 11]  0.0-20.2 sec  28.4 MBytes  11.8 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 14]  0.0-20.2 sec  31.9 MBytes  13.3 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 21]  0.0-20.2 sec  24.8 MBytes  10.3 Mbits/sec
                                        [ 18]  0.0-20.2 sec  26.6 MBytes  11.0 Mbits/sec
                                        [SUM]  0.0-20.2 sec   729 MBytes   302 Mbits/sec
                                        
                                        

                                        Max was 302 Mbps

                                        UDP Test

                                        
                                        iperf -c 192.168.1.1 -u -b 300m
                                        
                                        

                                        Output

                                        
                                        Client connecting to 192.168.1.1, UDP port 5001
                                        Sending 1470 byte datagrams
                                        UDP buffer size:  160 KByte (default)
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                        [  3] local 192.168.1.2 port 57996 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
                                        [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
                                        [  3]  0.0-10.0 sec   346 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec
                                        [  3] Sent 246971 datagrams
                                        [  3] Server Report:
                                        [  3]  0.0-10.0 sec   346 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec   0.017 ms   14/246970 (0.0057%)
                                        [  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  1 datagrams received out-of-order
                                        
                                        

                                        I am pretty happy with the results. Looks like the CPU is the bottle neck. Ran the TCP test for 200 seconds it transferred 6.83 Gigabytes of data at 293Mbps and the CPU was maxed out.

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

                                          Interesting thanks. Be interesting to see how that compares with running thd server and client on separate mchines behind pfSense on separate interfaces.

                                          Steve

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • W
                                            w1ll1am
                                            last edited by

                                            @stephenw10:

                                            Interesting thanks. Be interesting to see how that compares with running thd server and client on separate mchines behind pfSense on separate interfaces.

                                            Steve

                                            My plan was to try that when I get home. I will let you know.

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