X11SBA-LN4F vs A1SRi-2558F

I wanted to thank the Engineer for this thread which just saved me a lot of nerves because I was considering buying this:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/Mini-ITX/SYS-E200-9B.cfm

It looks great but if this Bare bone will be coming besides with the same failures or issues
likes explained in this thread here, I would be really careful thinking about it using it together with pfSense.

Alternatively to this box, you could try out a Axiomtek NA342 sorted with an Intel J1900 or an
Intel Atom E825 CPU. It is running pfSense without any issues and looks like the named above
Supermicro bare bone. This is not the newest board or CPU, but here in Germany able to get directly
from Axiomtek for 229 € (J1900) or 289 € (E3825). Surely not the same as the both boards named in
this thread but also perhaps an alternative to this. Likes the Axiomtek NA 361 and NA 361R based on
the Intel Atom SoC C2358 or C2558 or C2758.

I would venture to say that the boards are defective at this point (again, just a guess).

Me too after all reading this stuff about this board.

2. I don't really have any packages and not the fastest speed (17Meg down/1Meg up).

Perhaps you will be not able to fully saturate the line? Could you using one time iPerf or NetIO to measure
it from PC to PC through the pfSense box?

I have been working on an IPsec VPN but haven't got it fully functional yet (it's enabled but not quite working). Without the VPN enabled, I rarely saw the CPU % from the dashboard go above 3%. With the VPN enabled, it varies from 3 to 9%.

Are you using IPSec together with AES-GCM? AES-GCM over IPSec is being benefiting from the
AES-NI enormously as I am right informed.

Haven't investigate what can make it better until I get the VPN working. This is with PowerD set to Hiadaptive

Would be the best for any CPU that is coming with TurboBoost or able to run on many different CPU
frequencies to sort the pfSense box even with the right power that is needed at any point and in any
situation. Likes this CPU from 1,16GHz to 2,4GHz.

levicki

@Jailer:

After watching this thread closely for a while and now multiple reports of issues with this board I've decided to change my plans up a bit. I'm going to go with the X11SBA-F-O 8GB of memory and a mSATA for my build. It's just got 2 i210 LAN ports but that's not an issue for me as I don't need more than 2. If the need arises in the future a managed switch and vlan's can solve that problem.

Hopefully this board with just the 2 LAN ports won't experience the issues the LN4F model has. Should be going forth with the build in the next couple of months.

I have decided not to bother with Pentium N3700 based boards (no QuickAssist), and I am even less interested in J1900 (they even don't have AES-NI support). It looks like Atom C2558 (Rangeley) is much better suited for pfSense from all low power CPUs and boards I examined. As for two versus four LAN ports, I am not sure that would avoid the issue given that Engineer said not even first LAN (the one not behind the switch) wasn't working.

I have found another board that looks interesting to me – A1SRM-2558F:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Atom/X10/A1SRM-2558F.cfm

It is mATX (so a bit bigger but I don't mind) and it is a cheaper build overall -- you can put regular DDR3 (cheaper than SO-DIMM) and it is few EUR cheaper (it's around 275 EUR here).

There is also this nice looking case which can be used (around 45 EUR):
http://www.lc-power.com/en/product/gehaeuse/mini-itx/lc-1410mi/

Another option would be to make a desktop based mATX build -- H81 based board and Celeron CPU plus dedicated network adapters which would probably turn out cheaper and more powerful.

Engineer

@levicki:

As for two versus four LAN ports, I am not sure that would avoid the issue given that Engineer said not even first LAN (the one not behind the switch) wasn't working.

Just a correction: First LAN port worked fine out of the box. It was ports 2-4 that were behind the PCIe switching chip that had the issue. Regardless, this is a huge issue for people wanting to use this as a firewall.

Whatever SM did, the board now seems fine and has been up 24+ days with no watchdog timeouts. If I had to do over again knowing this, I would have chosen some other board. I may change my opinion if SM gets this under control without needing to send boards in to be corrected.

Jailer

I would agree that a 2558 based system would be a much better choice for someone with the bandwidth requirements that need it. My ISP is very limited so the quick assist means nothing to me but to others it may. Like I said the X1SBA-F-O is a good choice for me.

It surprises me a bit that the 2558 options from Supermicro are less expensive than the 2358 boards since both are available with similar options. I guess the only reason to go with the 2358 is if power consumption is a priority.

Engineer

@Jailer:

I would agree that a 2558 based system would be a much better choice for someone with the bandwidth requirements that need it. My ISP is very limited so the quick assist means nothing to me but to others it may. Like I said the X1SBA-F-O is a good choice for me.

It surprises me a bit that the 2558 options from Supermicro are less expensive than the 2358 boards since both are available with similar options. I guess the only reason to go with the 2358 is if power consumption is a priority.

Have you bought the 2 port version yet? Can you keep us (or me) updated as to whether you have issues with any of the LAN ports on the board? Also, if you don't mind, can you post your board revision and BIOS version?

Thanks in advance! :)

Edit: Darnit, sorry about not reading enough. I see that you're going forward in the next few months. Sorry about that.

Jailer

No problem. :) I'll be sure to post results when I do order and get it up and running.

levicki

@Jailer:

I would agree that a 2558 based system would be a much better choice for someone with the bandwidth requirements that need it. My ISP is very limited so the quick assist means nothing to me but to others it may. Like I said the X1SBA-F-O is a good choice for me.

I understand.

However, given the cost, this is something I expect to buy/upgrade once in a few years (I hope it will last at least five years).

My bandwidth is currently 70Mbps/4Mbps which is really slow so C2558 might even be an overkill, but I plan to run a few packages, not to mention that the internet speeds can only go up in the future so I consider this future-proofing.

ldean

Just wanted to update the thread. We received our box back from supermicro yesterday and will be installing it into production tomorrow. The repair report is somewhat vague about what they changed, but maybe it makes more sense to someone else:

Customer Reported Symptoms:
Watchdog timeout on ethernet ports.  Per TS, need ECO 18137

Test result notes and repair:
REPORTED PROBLEM FOUND.  WATCHDOG TIMEOUTS ON ETHERNET PORTS.  M/B HW ECO COMPLETED BY REWORK.  M/B BIOS, IPMI FW UPDATED TO CURRENT REVISION DONE.  CPU, DIMM SLOT DETECTION VERIFIED.  NIC PORT, USB PORT, IPMI CONNECTION TEST PASS.  NIC PORT LAN EEPROM FW UPDATED TO CURRENT REVISION COMPLETE.  NIC PORT PASSED OVERNIGHT PING TEST.  COM PORT CONNECTION VERIFIED.  SYSTEM HARDWARE FUNCTIONAL TEST PASS.  ECO VERIFIED.  ALL M/B SCREWS CHECKED.  TEST PASSED.

I'm not too sure what the ECO refers to. Anyone have an idea?

timotl

I just got the 2 port version and have the same issue with the 2nd port.
I put both ports in a LAGG and see the 2nd port stop passing traffic. I don't see watchdog timeouts in the log though.
The rest of the machine keeps running fine on only 1 port.

ECO means Engineering Change Order (ECO)
Definitely sounds like a hardware change, looks like I'll have to send mine back too.
I was hoping it would be resolved by a BIOS update.

Jailer

Well I guess this last reply counts me out for either version of this board. I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a beta tester for motherboards so I'll stick with a proven performer.

Bummer, either one of these would have suited me perfectly. :(

Engineer

@ldean:

Just wanted to update the thread. We received our box back from supermicro yesterday and will be installing it into production tomorrow. The repair report is somewhat vague about what they changed, but maybe it makes more sense to someone else:
Customer Reported Symptoms:
Watchdog timeout on ethernet ports.  Per TS, need ECO 18137

Test result notes and repair:
REPORTED PROBLEM FOUND.  WATCHDOG TIMEOUTS ON ETHERNET PORTS.  M/B HW ECO COMPLETED BY REWORK.  M/B BIOS, IPMI FW UPDATED TO CURRENT REVISION DONE.  CPU, DIMM SLOT DETECTION VERIFIED.  NIC PORT, USB PORT, IPMI CONNECTION TEST PASS.  NIC PORT LAN EEPROM FW UPDATED TO CURRENT REVISION COMPLETE.  NIC PORT PASSED OVERNIGHT PING TEST.  COM PORT CONNECTION VERIFIED.  SYSTEM HARDWARE FUNCTIONAL TEST PASS.  ECO VERIFIED.  ALL M/B SCREWS CHECKED.  TEST PASSED.
I'm not too sure what the ECO refers to. Anyone have an idea?

This one is interesting too…..

NIC PORT LAN EEPROM FW UPDATED TO CURRENT REVISION COMPLETE.

Jailer

I saw that too. Obviously a firmware issue with the controller causing the timeouts.

I wonder how long production on them will run before the issue gets fixed in the manufacturing process?

Engineer

Side note…my board has now been up 35 days on 2.2.5 with NO issues. ZERO watchdog timeouts now.

@Jailer:

I saw that too. Obviously a firmware issue with the controller causing the timeouts.

I wonder how long production on them will run before the issue gets fixed in the manufacturing process?

I was wondering the same. Don't know how many were in the supply chain before this was caught and SM seems content to ship them out defective and fix them IF the customer catches it (not always the case).

@timotl:

I just got the 2 port version and have the same issue with the 2nd port.

What hardware revision does your 2 port board have on it (1.01 on the 4 port version so far is all that I have seen)?

Engineer

Just noticed a new firmware 1.0b is now available. Anyone want to try to see if it possibly solves this issue before sending the board back?

Jailer

@Engineer:

Just noticed a new firmware 1.0b is now available. Anyone want to try to see if it possibly solves this issue before sending the board back?

Is there a place to see what the BIOS revisions are? There has to be somewhere but I'm obviously not smart enough to find it on my own.

Engineer

@Jailer:

@Engineer:

Just noticed a new firmware 1.0b is now available. Anyone want to try to see if it possibly solves this issue before sending the board back?

Is there a place to see what the BIOS revisions are? There has to be somewhere but I'm obviously not smart enough to find it on my own.

I've not been able to find any sort of change log at SM for any firmware.

timotl

Bios update didn't make any difference.
Time to RMA the board for repair..

endy66

I found this thread via Google, so i registered an account, because i have a similar Problem. I have a new X11SBA-LN4F, installed the newest pfSense build on it and configured (I switched from a X10SBA, because i Need Minimum 3 NICs). So far so good, but i have also These Watchdog timeouts. These occurs only on the igb2, which is my LAN Interface. I made some Tests and saw, that the timeout only occurs on heavy network load (LAN -> WAN / WAN -> LAN). Firmware and BIOS of my X11SBA-LN4F are also up2date. I bought this board 1 week ago.
Is the only solution to get it to work, to RMA this board?

Engineer

@endy66:

I found this thread via Google, so i registered an account, because i have a similar Problem. I have a new X11SBA-LN4F, installed the newest pfSense build on it and configured (I switched from a X10SBA, because i Need Minimum 3 NICs). So far so good, but i have also These Watchdog timeouts. These occurs only on the igb2, which is my LAN Interface. I made some Tests and saw, that the timeout only occurs on heavy network load (LAN -> WAN / WAN -> LAN). Firmware and BIOS of my X11SBA-LN4F are also up2date. I bought this board 1 week ago.
Is the only solution to get it to work, to RMA this board?

Yes, appears to be a hardware issue. Talking to ldean, SuperMicro has stated that the board has been updated to hardware revision 1.02 and the remaining 1.01 boards were to be changed (ECO) to the same level via modification. Seems that they have not done them all yet if you have received one.

Is your hardware level 1.01?

endy66

@Engineer:

Yes, appears to be a hardware issue. Talking to ldean, SuperMicro has stated that the board has been updated to hardware revision 1.02 and the remaining 1.01 boards were to be changed (ECO) to the same level via modification. Seems that they have not done them all yet if you have received one.

Is your hardware level 1.01?

Do i find the Revision number on the board itself? I will check that. The shop, which sells the board, have many pieces on stock, so i think this would be an older delivery. Then the only way is to send it back? If so, does this goes back directly to supermicro or via my Reseller?