On Mon, September 19, 2011 17:05, David Burgess wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Steven Sherwood <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> >> >> Iâm considering a few different platforms for low powered but Gigabit >> capable firewall/routers, and have been looking at Mini-ITX systems >> based on >> Atom processors. > > I have a D510-based dual Intel NIC board that consumes around 19W idle > with a PicoPSU and will route around 350 Mbps using the default packet > size in iperf, or 600+ Mbps with net.inet.ip.fastforwarding enabled. > > I have also done a system based on an Intel DH57JG board + i3 560, > 2.5" hdd and PicoPSU that used 17-19W idle and would route wire speed > (950 Mbps steady, using a vlan switch) on iperf with ~60% idle CPU in > top. > > Lastly, I have an Intel DQ67EP board with i5 2500, SSD, and DC-DC PSU > (Antec) that uses ~19W idle. I haven't run pfsense on this one or > tested its routing capacity. > > I hope the extra data points will be useful to you. > > db
It really great to see these numbers, and all others that were said in here. But now, even more I'm curious about AMD brazos numbers. I have an old Atom here, that I know is a great pfSense performer. But what would look like if I had an AMD small cpu (those brazos). I imagine this is also the wonder that the OP had. :) matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
