This hardware look ok?



  • I have been running pfsense 1.2.3-release for the last 5 years at our co-lo site and yesterday the hardware running it burned up. It was 100% rock solid from day 1 until death with a reboot every couple of years or so. I had it on a supermicro Atom D525 1u superserver with 4G of ram and an enterprise class HDD. I figured that I would replace it with something a little beefier so I ordered these:

    MB - http://www.amazon.com/Supermicro-Motherboard-Micro-DDR3-A1SRM-LN5F-2358-O/dp/B00O7AC5R0/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A29P93PKVXFSE3

    Chassis - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007RV2W6U/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A29P93PKVXFSE3

    Ram - http://www.precision.com/product/Supermicro_2GB_DDR3_SDRAM_Memory_Module/1023436223

    Drive - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236342

    Any reason that combo will not work well with the current pfsense release?

    I understood that the C2358 is made for communications use (I don't think we need a quad or octa-core with our 100/400 connection since a D535 handled it before), it has 4 Intel NICs on it, and 4G of ram is plenty as we were running Snort on it before with 4G and no issues.

    Am I missing anything?

    Thanks



  • Supermicro A1SRM-2558F-B Intel Atom C2558/ DDR3/ SATA3/ V&4GbE/ MicroATX Motherboard & CPU Combo
    can be had cheaper

    SUPERMICRO SC505 203B  ports are front mount on this chassis





  • I just installed pfSense on a Supermicro A1SRi-2758F (basically the C2758 version of your motherboard) and it screams.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you got gigabit throughput with just NAT and firewalling on the board you have. Installing other packages will of course affect your overall throughput.



  • That's good to hear.  We pretty much just use it as a transparent firewall (no NAT we have a /24 of public IPs) and intrusion detection so it should run well.

    Thanks



  • @antillie:

    I just installed pfSense on a Supermicro A1SRi-2758F (basically the C2758 version of your motherboard) and it screams.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you got gigabit throughput with just NAT and firewalling on the board you have. Installing other packages will of course affect your overall throughput.

    Too expensive for me…...
    but as 2758 is a 8-core platform, you can put decent load on it without sacrificing performance, the bigger brother, C2750 has proven to be about 50% processing power of existing low end Xeon E3, so C2758 won't be too far away from this....



  • @edwardwong:

    Too expensive for me…...
    but as 2758 is a 8-core platform, you can put decent load on it without sacrificing performance, the bigger brother, C2750 has proven to be about 50% processing power of existing low end Xeon E3, so C2758 won't be too far away from this....

    You got that a bit backwards, the C2758 is the more powerful version of the C2750 due to the inclusion of quick assist. Although both CPUs will easily push 1000 mpbs of routed and firewalled traffic. However once pfSense supports quick assist the C2358 will probably outperform the C2750 by a large margin and the C2758 will probably spank most Xeons. At the moment pfSense is leaving a huge amount of hardware acceleration on the table with regards to the high end Rangeley CPUs.

    From what I understand Intel is working closely with the pfSence devs to get quick assist working but who knows how long it will take.



  • @antillie:

    @edwardwong:

    Too expensive for me…...
    but as 2758 is a 8-core platform, you can put decent load on it without sacrificing performance, the bigger brother, C2750 has proven to be about 50% processing power of existing low end Xeon E3, so C2758 won't be too far away from this....

    You got that a bit backwards, the C2758 is the more powerful version of the C2750 due to the inclusion of quick assist. Although both CPUs will easily push 1000 mpbs of routed and firewalled traffic. However once pfSense supports quick assist the C2358 will probably outperform the C2750 by a large margin and the C2758 will probably spank most Xeons. At the moment pfSense is leaving a huge amount of hardware acceleration on the table with regards to the high end Rangeley CPUs.

    From what I understand Intel is working closely with the pfSence devs to get quick assist working but who knows how long it will take.

    I know it's not really apple-apple comparison….if you mean crypto applications, definitely C2758 wins, but for some other things not related to crypto, C2750 has Turbo Boost which might help a bit, I wish C2758 would have Turbo Boost as well so that it can be a full feature SoC



  • To me single core turbo boost seems a little silly on an 8 core CPU. Surely anything you use on such a system will be multi-threaded. Otherwise you would have been better off with an i7.



  • Hi folks,

    I know it's not really apple-apple comparison….if you mean crypto applications, definitely C2758 wins, but for some other things not related to crypto, C2750 has Turbo Boost which might help a bit, I
    wish C2758 would have Turbo Boost as well so that it can be a full feature SoC

    C2758 Rangeley = AES-NI and Intel QuickAssist
    Better for building security appliances

    C2750 Avoton = AES-NI and Turbo Boost
    Better for building small servers

    But for sure if the C2758 will be suited with Turbo Boost on top it would be the best SoC ever!



  • @antillie:

    To me single core turbo boost seems a little silly on an 8 core CPU. Surely anything you use on such a system will be multi-threaded. Otherwise you would have been better off with an i7.

    Nope, turbo boost works on all core, not just a single core (like those normal desktop processors)



  • I guess quick assist must be capable of some incredible things then. Otherwise there would be no point in the C2xx8 CPUs.



  • @antillie:

    I guess quick assist must be capable of some incredible things then. Otherwise there would be no point in the C2xx8 CPUs.

    Hmm, as I see it right the TurboBoost is better if you drive a server like apache, with some
    high load peaks and the QuickAssist is better for security based appliances if the Code will be
    optimized for using this integrated SoC option. So I will be going with C2xx8 former called
    "Rangeley" this would be better for driving pfSense on it I think.



  • Yes, QuickAssist will be better, as it supports more compression/encryption types.


Log in to reply