Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

Going back to the OP, here's a postmortem on exactly what happened: In short, we had unknowingly downgraded from 64 bit to 32 bit during an upgrade. It's covered here: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide#Avoiding_Unintended_Architecture_Change Interestingly, it worked like this:

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

I wrote MTU since you used it. What I am talking about are packet sizes. If people bulding internet knew what they where doing then a MTU of 1500 (L2) or more would be mandatory. But because of old ATM stuff this isn't true for all of internet. When I say our average packet size was 1200 that has

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

> My point is just that if you have normal traffic patterns, even at 600 you > should have no problem pushing 10GE. A MTU of 600 should give you about 53 gigabit/s if you are able yo push 1200 pps with that payload. An "MTU of 600" wouldn't allow IPv6 to pass over a link. IPv6 requires

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

1200 was my average packet size when analyzed in Dataguard Core network (a smb ISP here in .no) . Im sure others can find different averages. My point is just that if you have normal traffic patterns, even at 600 you should have no problem pushing 10GE. A MTU of 600 should give you about 53

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

On Thursday, January 26, 2017, Espen Johansen wrote: > Are you saying worst case is 80%? Its not normal to have all minimum size > packets unless you are under ddos. > Default ethernet is 1526 (1530 with vlan) with a MTU 1500 on a layer 1 > frame. > A layer 2 frame is 1518

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

Are you saying worst case is 80%? Its not normal to have all minimum size packets unless you are under ddos. Default ethernet is 1526 (1530 with vlan) with a MTU 1500 on a layer 1 frame. A layer 2 frame is 1518 (1522 with vlan). If you want to include all layer headers then 1542 including vlan is

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Vick Khera wrote: > ahci_load="YES" > Indeed, this line is leftover from olden days. This is not necessary anymore with the FreeBSD 10.x kernel. ___ pfSense mailing list

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > Would you mind sharing a snapshot of your Rangeley-optimized tunables? > > IIRC there are un-editable tunables that show on your tunables page that > are not called out in the XML config. > > Thanks Vick > > This is the

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:06 PM, rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: > > Am 2017-01-26 07:03, schrieb Jim Thompson: >> It does not. >> The c2758 SoC is interesting. 8 cores, and the on-die i354 is essentially a >> block with 4 i350s on it. >> These have 8 queues for each of rx and tx, so 16 each, for a

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

>>> From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org <javascript:;>] On >> Behalf Of Karl Fife >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:02 PM >>> To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List <list@lists.pfsense.org >> <javascript:;>> >>

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

Would you mind sharing a snapshot of your Rangeley-optimized tunables? IIRC there are un-editable tunables that show on your tunables page that are not called out in the XML config. Thanks Vick On 1/26/2017 9:47 AM, Vick Khera wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Karl Fife

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > I recently did a virgin install of 2.3.2 nano on an older atom (a Soekris > 6501), and found there were no tunables for kern.ipc.nmbclusters nor > kern.ipc.nmbufs. Maybe it's a nano/full-install difference?I would >

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

Am 2017-01-26 07:03, schrieb Jim Thompson: It does not. The c2758 SoC is interesting. 8 cores, and the on-die i354 is essentially a block with 4 i350s on it. These have 8 queues for each of rx and tx, so 16 each, for a total of 64 queues. On the c2xxx series (and other) boxes we ship, we

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

scussion Mailing List <list@lists.pfsense.org > <javascript:;>> > > Subject: Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot > > failure with pfSense 2.3.2 > > > > This is a good theory, because RRD data from 2.2.6 suggests that the > > dif

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

5, 2017 4:02 PM > > To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List <list@lists.pfsense.org > <javascript:;>> > > Subject: Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot > > failure with pfSense 2.3.2 > > > > This is a good theory, because

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

gt; > Subject: Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot > failure with pfSense 2.3.2 > > This is a good theory, because RRD data from 2.2.6 suggests that the > difference in utilization between the versions is slight, and that we had > 'barely' exhausted our system defa

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:02 PM To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List <list@lists.pfsense.org> Subject: Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2 This is a good theory, because RRD data from 2.2.6 suggests that the difference in utili

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

This is a good theory, because RRD data from 2.2.6 suggests that the difference in utilization between the versions is slight, and that we had 'barely' exhausted our system default allocation. Is there a difference between nano and full with respect to the installer explicitly setting

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

On 01/25/2017 01:10 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > The piece that's still missing for me is that there must have been some > change in default system setting for FreeBSD, or some other change > between versions, because the system booted fine with pfSense v 2.2.6 Aside from what has already been

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

This is valuable input. Thank you to you and Peter. We had to add the tunables rows where they did not exist before. Perhaps if this had been a brand new virgin installation, the installer would have made suitable tunables estimates, based on the hardware, and inserted them into a new

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

017 12:11 PM To: ESF - Electric Sheep Fencing pfSense Support <list@lists.pfsense.org> Subject: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2 pfsense 2.2.6 was running without issue on our Supermicro A1SRi-2758F rangeley board (Intel Atom C2758) When we

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

@lists.pfsense.org> > Subject: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure > with pfSense 2.3.2 > > pfsense 2.2.6 was running without issue on our Supermicro A1SRi-2758F > rangeley board (Intel Atom C2758) > > When we upgraded to 2.3.2, the new system faile

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

25, 2017 12:11 PM To: ESF - Electric Sheep Fencing pfSense Support <list@lists.pfsense.org> Subject: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2 pfsense 2.2.6 was running without issue on our Supermicro A1SRi-2758F rangeley board (Intel Atom C2758) W

Re: [pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > pfsense 2.2.6 was running without issue on our Supermicro A1SRi-2758F > rangeley board (Intel Atom C2758) > Are you sure you didn't hard-code them before in the system tunables section under 2.2? On my C2758 system (exact

[pfSense] Intel Atom C2758 (Rangeley/Avoton) install/boot failure with pfSense 2.3.2

pfsense 2.2.6 was running without issue on our Supermicro A1SRi-2758F rangeley board (Intel Atom C2758) When we upgraded to 2.3.2, the new system failed to boot due to having insufficient RAM allocated to network memory buffers. We had to interrupt the boot process increase the value of