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

    Braswell N3150 with Intel NICs

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    27 Posts 9 Posters 22.8k 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.
    • ?
      Guest
      last edited by

      Oh, those CPUs are looking nice!. Do you think that it would be a good idea to mix into one of these a NAS and pfSense using ESXI 6.0?

      Installing a firewall inside of a VM might be discussed by two different camps, one vote for it and the other not.
      But, if you are installing it at home, I think it could be a win for you, with a closer view on the electric power
      usage within. And there was an interesting article about one of these SoCs at www.servethehome.com and
      they where trying out this construct pfSense and a NAS in different VMs on the Xeon D-1500 platform.
      But I was not finding it now in the minute, sorry for that.

      I read the integrated LANs like i350 have virtualisation capabilities so it will be the same as running it native (or almost, I guess… for the pfSense setup I mean)

      This should be answered by peoples who are running hyper-visors and VMs.

      I'm not too keen on having pfsense virtualised, but maybe is an interesting option as I also have a NAS running.

      As told above it might be interesting for home user pending on the electric power usage
      to have a NAS and pfSense running in VMs, but perhaps there will be soon or nearly another
      way be opened owed to this point. comment on that by @jwt

      EDIT: how do you find out if a CPU has the QuickAssist? it's not listed in the ark.intel.com database

      Not that we are talking here about two different things, there is an existing D-1500 platform and now
      an upgrade to existing platform and one is Storage accelerated and the other one is network accelerated
      not likes before one SKU for all! And the newer platform that is network accelerated, ending with an eight
      likes Xeon D-15x8, only is coming together with; Servethehome article

      It appears as though the next-generation Intel Xeon D-15×8 networking parts will have a similar impact on performance,
      if not even greater with their support for DPDK and QuickAssist.

      • AES-NI (likes before)
        Is actual used at the moment by pfSense
      • Intel QuickAssist (new)
        pfSense team is working on, to insert it in the pfSense code
      • Intel DPDK (for enabled software) (new)
        Is on the road map together with netmap as I am right informed
        As an example, it can be speeding up Layer3 routing and such things as i know, if the DPDK was
        used to write code or the API from this DPDK was used to write code, but this should be answered
        by an code writer and not by me. I don´t know writing code and programming.

      Xeon D-15x1 = storage accelerated SKUs using the SPDK
      Xeon D-15x8 = network accelerated SKus using the DPDK
      Servethehome article

      Very interesting and useful comments.

      Surely, it was done by @cmb in another thread about VPN and AES-NI. AES-NI inoperative on pfSense 2.2?

      Still I don't understand this one about OpenVPN not faster with AES-NI.
      From OpenVPN.net figures are quite different.

      This might be pending on the point that we are not talking about the same thing as I would imagine
      for now, but let me try to explain it that it comes more clear to understand. There are two points here
      we are talking about; OpenVPN & IPSec VPN and the usage and benefit from using AES-NI
      So one time the usage of AES-NI and one time the benefits from using AES-NI would be the
      both points to discuss here as I see it right. Please correct me if not so.

      • OpenSSL is using AES-NI if it is present in the CPU or SoC and OpenSSL is used by OpenVPN
        but OpenVPN is only AES-CBC at this time and this might be not getting any benefit from the AES-NI

      • IPSec is using AES-GCM and this is using AES-NI and will also benefiting from this.

      Or if you need it more sliced and cut;

      • OpenSSL is using AES-NI if it is present in the CPU or SoC
      • OpenSSL is used by OpenVPN and this uses AES-CBC
      • But AES-CBC is not getting no till only a very tiny benefit from AES-NI
      • IPSec is using AES-GCM
      • And AES-GCM is using the AES-NI instructions and getting also a huge benefit from that

      Thats all, please don´t mix it up to hard or read something other out from this.

      Or in shorter version:
      IPSec is using AES-GCM and this will benefits from the AES-NI and let growing
      up the entire throughput from normal 1x up to 4x or 5x.

      OpenVPN is using AES-CBC but this is not benefiting from the AES-NI and there fore
      there is no till only some benefit from the AES-NI usage.

      This said, I've no idea about Quickassist impact which may help even more.

      Ok but what should pump up both IPSec and OpenVPN? There are two ways to realize this.
      OpenVPN also gets AES-GCM that is using the AES-NI instructions as said by @cmb in the
      other thread and OpenVPN is also benefiting from them, or if not so, or not so fast
      the Intel QuickAssist technology is ready to use in pfSense for compression and decompression
      that might be speeding up also the OpenVPN without using AES-NI or without AES-GCM.

      I was here reacting only to the "OpenVPN with vs. without AES-NI", more with question mark that strong statement BTW.

      If only IPSec with AES-GCM is using AES-NI and speeding up VPNs by the AES-NI instruction set of
      the CPU or Soc, but OpenSSL in or used by OpenVPN is only using AES-CBC and based on this there
      will be only a little bit or no benefit from AES-NI there for. Please what was strong now from this statement?

      That means we may not be able to run pfsense on 2 core C2338 (SG2220 and SG2440) in the future.

      Can be but I think the comment was more related to the Intel i2xx LAN Ports and the NIC queues that will be
      produced and must be handled by pfSense.

      The change may come when Netgate replaces C2338 for the Denverton Atoms.

      Why should they do so? If the intel Atom C2000 (Rangeley) SoCs become older they are cheaper
      to buy and if they are sufficient enough to handle 1 GBit/s on the WAN and ~500 MBit/s (SG-4860)
      VPN throughput it could be a really cheaper then now entry level, home usage or SOHO platform for
      the pfSense store. And the Xeon D-15x8 SoCs are definitely more enterprise related, so the "Denverton"
      platform might be a good chance to set up a Pro series between them, or am I wrong with this?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        Sekrit
        last edited by

        @BlueKobold:

        The change may come when Netgate replaces C2338 for the Denverton Atoms.

        Why should they do so? If the intel Atom C2000 (Rangeley) SoCs become older they are cheaper
        to buy and if they are sufficient enough to handle 1 GBit/s on the WAN and ~500 MBit/s (SG-4860)
        VPN throughput it could be a really cheaper then now entry level, home usage or SOHO platform for
        the pfSense store. And the Xeon D-15x8 SoCs are definitely more enterprise related, so the "Denverton"
        platform might be a good chance to set up a Pro series between them, or am I wrong with this?

        Rangeley was manufactured 2 years ago on 22nm wafers and it is history for Intel. It's time for another tock. You may not be able to source it anymore.

        pfSense 2.3.3-p1 (PFblockerNG, Snort, Squid).  VMware on Supermicro X11SSH-LN4F, Xeon E3-1425 v5, 16Gb

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

          Well, I've got Windows Server 2012 R2 running with Hyper-V on my CI323 nano after thinkering a bit.

          The solution that I've used is to download all the Windows 8/8.1 drivers from the zotac site + the Intel chipset driver from JetWay site for NP591 board ( the newest inf driver on the JetWay site is dated 02.june 2016.) and integrated the divers into the install and boot wim files using dism.

          After installing the Windows Server 2012 R2 did all the possible updates, and only then I've added the Hyper-v role to the Windows. I'm running a virtualized firewall on my CI323.
          The next step is getting ESXI running on my CI323 or Hyper-v Server, the later could be a problem since the system crashes as soon as it's installed on first boot, so there is no possibility to update the server ( could try updating the server with VT turned off in BIOS).

          ATM. I've installed Hyper-V Server 2012 R2, with VT disabled and updating Hyper-V, will post results if someone is interested.

          Kind regards,
          Bruno

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            Sekrit
            last edited by

            I tried Jetway but decided to return it.  Instead, I changed my server to XeonE3-1245 and supermicro X11 motherboard with a 4 port intel LAN and running pfsense on Vmware under Windows 10.  Addons are snort, pfblocker and Squid proxy. It has been very stable and fast for 6 months.

            pfSense 2.3.3-p1 (PFblockerNG, Snort, Squid).  VMware on Supermicro X11SSH-LN4F, Xeon E3-1425 v5, 16Gb

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • N
              netghost
              last edited by

              Bruno
              I have been trying to install ESXi 6.0 on the ci323 nano but with no luck. Everything I have tried so far ends up halting at" Relocating modules and starting up the kernel". Would like to know if you are able to install ESXi on it and how you went about it.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                khorton
                last edited by

                @Sekrit:

                I tried Jetway but decided to return it.  Instead, I changed my server to XeonE3-1245 and supermicro X11 motherboard with a 4 port intel LAN and running pfsense on Vmware under Windows 10.  Addons are snort, pfblocker and Squid proxy. It has been very stable and fast for 6 months.

                Which Jetway board did you have, and why did you decide to return it?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  Sekrit
                  last edited by

                  @khorton:

                  @Sekrit:

                  I tried Jetway but decided to return it.  Instead, I changed my server to XeonE3-1245 and supermicro X11 motherboard with a 4 port intel LAN and running pfsense on Vmware under Windows 10.  Addons are snort, pfblocker and Squid proxy. It has been very stable and fast for 6 months.

                  Which Jetway board did you have, and why did you decide to return it?

                  I had a Jetway JC320U93W-2930-B Intel Celeron N2930 Dual Intel LAN Fanless NUC

                  It generated too much heat. SO-DIMM was defective or the motherboard was causing memtest errors. SSD I received was DOA. The USB drive that I was using temporarily eventually failed too.  I had enough problems.  I wanted to give it a shot to vmware installation and never looked back.

                  pfSense 2.3.3-p1 (PFblockerNG, Snort, Squid).  VMware on Supermicro X11SSH-LN4F, Xeon E3-1425 v5, 16Gb

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