Indeed, I was very excited when the C3000 series was announced.
Probably more than any other computer hardware announcement release.
But all this continued speculation and excitement is premature, building
unnecessary hype. Aside from a couple of industry insiders, I don't
know a single person who has even seen one. You can't buy a C3000 in
the stores and nobody knows when they'll be available.
Also, it's a bad idea to put critical infrastructure on bleeding-edge
hardware. The notorious AVR54 C2000 bug has _finally_ been acknowledged
and understood upstream, and at least you can get an RMA. But that took
a long time and effort, even with widespread exposure of an obvious issue.
I already have a C2758 but it is being used for something else and is
completely inaccessible. I've got another on the way for another use,
so maybe I can experiment with that one if that transaction works itself
out.
I am drawn towards the ASRock E3C236D2I out of interest, to try
something a bit different, and for future flexibility. I presume
there's nothing about this option that makes it a bad choice for running
pfSense.
On 29/10/2017 17:22, Jonathan Willsher wrote:
I dont know if you own the boards already that you are thinking about using,
but SM has new C3000 based boards as well. There is tight availability right
now though.
Jwillsher
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Send List mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of List digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. ASRock E3C236D2I+Pentium G4560 vs SM A1SRi-C2758F (ullbeking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:45:59 +0100
From: ullbeking <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [pfSense] ASRock E3C236D2I+Pentium G4560 vs SM A1SRi-C2758F
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi all!
[I originally tried read submit one of these in the kitchen, there was
an apparent transient connection failure of unknown nauture between
passenger and driver. However it come across better this way.]
I decided to try out a thought experiment to see what options are
available and how versatile they are, for running pfsense as a
firewwall+router with four NICs each.
Although I'm virtualizing large parts of my network, pfsense is one
thing that should run in its own box, with minimal fussing. One of my
requirements is that it runs on server-grade hardware. I came up with
two options:
1. ASRock Rack E3C236D2I plus Pentium G4560 (and updated BIOS), 16 GB
DDR4, and storage. The board has two NICs but I can add more using the
PCIe expansion port. Clearly these would have to be added using
low-profile or half-height expansion cards/
2. Supermicro A1SRi-C2758F system (new, or fixed if carrying the AVR54
C2000 B0/C0 stepping bug), 16 GB DDR3, and storage.
Fanless should be feasible, and all I need is a capable, modest system
that can easily be repurposed or resold if need be. Each system should
be able able to run in a mini-ITX box, such as an SFF Akasa. Akasa even
sells passively cooled mini-ITX boxes specificially designed for
Supermicro A1SAi/A1SRi, and I'm pretty sure I can make a fanless mini
ITX case work for the ASRock E3C236D2I+G4560 combo too. The only thing
is that the CPU + heat sink + fan (if present) can fit vertically inside
the case (total height inside the case is 68.5 mm).
Either way, I can upgrade the RAM and have a virtualization server able
to handle light loads. The particular advantages of Item 2. above, and
what personally draws me to it, are that it's more versatile, the CPU is
upgradeable, and it uses DDR4.
Both CPUs have similar PassMark scores, and when the sums are done they
cost about the same as each other. On the other hand, if I'm going to
be using 4+ NICs, then I imagine I'd want at least four cores to avoid
bottlenecks at the NICs. Alternativelu, are threads via hyperthreading
sufficient for this?
What do you think? I'd appreciate any opinions. Thanks!
P.S. Are there known problems posting to the forums at the moment?
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
------------------------------
End of List Digest, Vol 900, Issue 1
************************************
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
