Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-12 Thread Brandon Vincent
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Patrick Dohman wrote: > Superfluous access to sensor data & watch guard timers etc... It's pretty useful in high availability enterprise environments. There is no other good way to collect some of that sensor data. Brandon Vincent

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-12 Thread Patrick Dohman
bsd.org] On Behalf Of > Josh >> Grosse >> Sent: 12 March 2016 13:22 >> To: misc@openbsd.org >> Subject: Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?) >> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:34:16AM +, Kapfhammer, Stefan wrote: >>> But how wo

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-12 Thread torsten
> -Original Message- > From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Josh > Grosse > Sent: 12 March 2016 13:22 > To: misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?) > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:34:16AM +

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-12 Thread Josh Grosse
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:34:16AM +, Kapfhammer, Stefan wrote: > But how would you feed the CAT female jack out of the original > pcengines enclosure? There are no further mounting holes in it. I was thinking of the Alix, where enclosures are not included.

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread openbsd
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:42:23PM -0500, Alan McKay wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Josh Grosse wrote: > > 100Mbit? You could go even smaller, such as the PCEngines Alix > > platform. They are 32-bit (i386) only, however. > > > > Each NIC is able to sustain

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Josh Grosse
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:42:23PM -0500, Alan McKay wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Josh Grosse wrote: > > 100Mbit? You could go even smaller, such as the PCEngines Alix > > platform. They are 32-bit (i386) only, however. > > > > Each NIC is able to sustain

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Martin Schröder
2016-03-11 22:42 GMT+01:00 Alan McKay : > Ideally I'd like to get a redundant pair of FWs in 1U. > But I need 4 NICs on each as a bare min. Lanner FW-7525 Best Martin

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Alan McKay
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Josh Grosse wrote: > 100Mbit? You could go even smaller, such as the PCEngines Alix > platform. They are 32-bit (i386) only, however. > > Each NIC is able to sustain 70-80 Mbps, in my experience. Do those have 4 NICs? Ideally I'd like

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Alan McKay
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Brandon Vincent wrote: > If you have a pair setup for redundancy, it really comes down to the > expected network utilization. What sort of network are we talking > about? Well I guess I'd place them according to their capability. Could I

Re: Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Brandon Vincent
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alan McKay wrote: > Opinions on using either of those as a redundant pair for corporate use? If you have a pair setup for redundancy, it really comes down to the expected network utilization. What sort of network are we talking about?

Small FW boxes for CORP use (was: T40E APU?)

2016-03-11 Thread Alan McKay
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > Nope. You might want a Supermicro X11SBA-LN4F or maybe Netgate's > RCC-VE 2440 if you need 4 ports. Opinions on using either of those as a redundant pair for corporate use? -- "You should sit in nature for 20 minutes