[pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built and tested? http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm Thanks! ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote: Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built and tested? http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm If you're technical, and do your own support you should buy from PC Engines. If you're nontechnical and need an assembled device with support and/or want to support pfSense development, you should buy from Netgate. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
I asked the differences in the two line items from netgate. On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:56, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote: Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built and tested? http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm If you're technical, and do your own support you should buy from PC Engines. If you're nontechnical and need an assembled device with support and/or want to support pfSense development, you should buy from Netgate. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:58, Ryan Coleman ryanjc...@me.com wrote: I asked the differences in the two line items from netgate. Perhaps you should ask sa...@netgate.com Jim ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
The difference is not $200, but about $100 with 8GB Sandisk Extreme Secure [sic!] SDHC card included. 1. What's *secure* about this card? I suppose it's a regular SDHC one. 2. I would like to pay less, but I'm worried about assembling it right with regards to cooling. Can anyone clarify how is cooling achieved in this unit? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case. Mine get toasty but they haven't cooked yet. You could cut a fan in the case if you needed to. On Jul 22, 2014, at 14:29, Nickolai Leschov nlesc...@gmail.com wrote: The difference is not $200, but about $100 with 8GB Sandisk Extreme Secure [sic!] SDHC card included. 1. What's secure about this card? I suppose it's a regular SDHC one. 2. I would like to pay less, but I'm worried about assembling it right with regards to cooling. Can anyone clarify how is cooling achieved in this unit? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum case? Mine get toasty but they haven't cooked yet. You could cut a fan in the case if you needed to. That bothers me quite a bit, but what can you do? I would appreciate it if the manufacturer had the wisdom to leave some margin in the design of the device, thermal performance-wise. You could cut a fan in the case if you needed to. For a person like me, with a history of choosing computer hardware on the basis of its potential to run without extra active cooling, and redesigning computers to minimize the demand for active cooling - that's a blasphemy. (a single low-speed PSU fan with huge CPU heatsink should be enough for cooling a desktop; completely fanless is a bit too much by my judgement - fried one PC that way) The fact that this could be necessary, or advisable, annoys me greatly, to put it mildly. There's simply not enough possibilities out there to choose a proper silent fan in such tight space constraints. Also, the possibility of degradation of fan's sound profile (all fans become noisier when they age), performance or outright failure, the difficulty of cutting the case properly and all the possible complications that could come with it - are the issues I would gladly sidestep entirely. I wonder why they wouldn't just build the board with some appropriate Atom CPU? Shouldn't that be more power-efficient? And maybe even more performant, to boot? E3815 http://ark.intel.com/products/78474, probably? Though it's not clear whether its 6W TDP would be noticeably better in practice than AMD's 6.4W http://www.amd.com/Documents/49282_G-Series_platform_brief.pdf, but isn't it kinda the manufacturer's job to ensure that the product won't croak with the stock cooling?! ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov nlesc...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder why they wouldn't just build the board with some appropriate Atom CPU? :-) And maybe even more performant, to boot? E3815, probably? Bay Trail? Why? That's for tablets. C2xx8 more likely. IJS...___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov nlesc...@gmail.com wrote: Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum case? Yes, there is a transfer pad. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Do you happen to have an image of this? On Jul 22, 2014, at 16:28, Jim Thompson j...@smallworks.com wrote: On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov nlesc...@gmail.com wrote: Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum case? Yes, there is a transfer pad. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Bay Trail? Why? That's for tablets. What's the difference, in practical terms? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
[pfSense] pfsense fw blocking internal requests
Hi Team, Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing 192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within the internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can ping successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine , sourcing from 192.168.0.5, to the pfsense LAN IP , my pings fail. i've got a firewall rule on the pfsense firewall allowing anything from 192.168.0.0/24 to anything. here's what the topology looks like: internet rl1 pfsense rl0 LAN LAN subnet (rl0) : 10.10.171.0/24 here are the routes on the pfsense appliance: [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(1): netstat -rn | grep 192.168. 192.168.0.0/24 10.10.171.80 UGS 0 161rl0 and here's the rl0 interface: [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(4): ifconfig rl0 | grep inet | grep -v inet6 inet 10.10.171.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.171.255 the LAN subnet is : 10.10.171.0/24 the server that 192.168.0.0/24 resides on is : 10.10.171.80 when trying to initiate the ping from 10.10.171.80, sourcing 192.168.0.5 and destined for 10.10.171.1 (rl0), pings fail and here is what i see in the logs: Jul 22 15:27:53 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.60 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22636, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:56 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.02 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22642, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) the fact that the firewall rule is there on the LAN interface , permitting anything from 192.168/24 , plus not blocking any bogons or private addresses on this interface, i'm scratching my head. if someone has any ideas, would really appreciate it. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
http://pcengines.ch/apucool.htm Holger Am 22.07.2014 23:31 schrieb Nickolai Leschov nlesc...@gmail.com: Yes, there is a transfer pad. What is this pad made of: some metal or is this a thermal shim, which is a sort of paste? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] pfsense fw blocking internal requests
It's most likely your specified Protocol in the allow rule you have set. Open the rule that you believe should allow the traffic and change the rule from TCP, UDP, TCP/UDP to say any. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Khurram Khan brokenf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Team, Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing 192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within the internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can ping successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine , sourcing from 192.168.0.5, to the pfsense LAN IP , my pings fail. i've got a firewall rule on the pfsense firewall allowing anything from 192.168.0.0/24 to anything. here's what the topology looks like: internet rl1 pfsense rl0 LAN LAN subnet (rl0) : 10.10.171.0/24 here are the routes on the pfsense appliance: [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(1): netstat -rn | grep 192.168. 192.168.0.0/24 10.10.171.80 UGS 0 161rl0 and here's the rl0 interface: [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(4): ifconfig rl0 | grep inet | grep -v inet6 inet 10.10.171.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.171.255 the LAN subnet is : 10.10.171.0/24 the server that 192.168.0.0/24 resides on is : 10.10.171.80 when trying to initiate the ping from 10.10.171.80, sourcing 192.168.0.5 and destined for 10.10.171.1 (rl0), pings fail and here is what i see in the logs: Jul 22 15:27:53 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.60 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22636, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:56 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.02 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22642, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) the fact that the firewall rule is there on the LAN interface , permitting anything from 192.168/24 , plus not blocking any bogons or private addresses on this interface, i'm scratching my head. if someone has any ideas, would really appreciate it. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Thanks, Holger! I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? I find it less than adequate, but let's hope that it works. Looks like I could manage to assemble that. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] pfsense fw blocking internal requests
protocol in the rule is any. here's what the rule looks like: Action:Pass Interface: LAN TCP/IP: IPv4 protocol: any source: Type: network, address: 192.168.0.0/24 destination: any On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Justin Edmands wrote: It's most likely your specified Protocol in the allow rule you have set. Open the rule that you believe should allow the traffic and change the rule from TCP, UDP, TCP/UDP to say any. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Khurram Khan brokenf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Team, Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing 192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within the internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can ping successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine , sourcing from 192.168.0.5, to the pfsense LAN IP , my pings fail. i've got a firewall rule on the pfsense firewall allowing anything from 192.168.0.0/24 to anything. here's what the topology looks like: internet rl1 pfsense rl0 LAN LAN subnet (rl0) : 10.10.171.0/24 here are the routes on the pfsense appliance: [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(1): netstat -rn | grep 192.168. 192.168.0.0/24 10.10.171.80 UGS 0 161rl0 and here's the rl0 interface: [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(4): ifconfig rl0 | grep inet | grep -v inet6 inet 10.10.171.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.171.255 the LAN subnet is : 10.10.171.0/24 the server that 192.168.0.0/24 resides on is : 10.10.171.80 when trying to initiate the ping from 10.10.171.80, sourcing 192.168.0.5 and destined for 10.10.171.1 (rl0), pings fail and here is what i see in the logs: Jul 22 15:27:53 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.60 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22636, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) Jul 22 15:27:56 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.02 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22642, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) the fact that the firewall rule is there on the LAN interface , permitting anything from 192.168/24 , plus not blocking any bogons or private addresses on this interface, i'm scratching my head. if someone has any ideas, would really appreciate it. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Ryan, Profanity and personal attacks have no place on this list. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:12, Ryan Coleman ryanjc...@me.com wrote: Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this? On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman ryanjc...@me.com wrote: Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIe6zqb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CQjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYr3d8KpF1D ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS921J5yXBNMUQsII6XCNOqr0VVBYSejjod7bMUsr79FI3DCn3oVdd-ZT7ztfS0aJmfyPsH5undSH7NpKlyLbC_YxtSPb_nVN4sCVtXHTbFECzB_zhOesd7dQkumKzp55mXbfaxVZicHs3jqpJATvAn3hOYyyODtUTsSjDdqymovaAWsIXjUk_w0e2qKMM-l9OwXn3VkCrfBipsxlK5LE2zVkDjBDqv2DY01dLKnodwLQzh0qmRDhzUkYQKCy0eAWXYvxrPh0g-pz_wq810b1dwQgr10Qg20m2q8AMroudVHDmk1gq ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0q43qb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CSjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYriex-wjKS ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thompson wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. Respectfully, I disagree. Given the APU is - as the de facto successor to the ALIX - likely to be a piece of hardware used in a lot of new pfSense installs, discussion about its merits and drawbacks (in a pfSense context) strikes me as being *entirely* on topic. Certainly if heat dissipation is going to be a concern with this unit in long-term deployments, and given the 24/7/365 nature of firewalls, that's very relevant to pfSense and something for which we as a community need to be finding solutions. Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On Jul 22, 2014, at 16:30, Nickolai Leschov nlesc...@gmail.com wrote: Bay Trail? Why? That's for tablets. What's the difference, in practical terms? First: Rangeley has an integrated i354 10/100/1000 quad Ethernet MAC. Bay Trail requires one to add Ethernet Second: Rangeley has a high-speed crypto co-processor (Quick Assist) Third: the lowest end Rangeley has twice the cache of the low-end Bay Trail. Similarly, the highest end Rangeley has twice the cache of the highest end Bay Trail Fourth: Bay Trail is a max quad core part, Rangeley is max 8-core (C27x8). Fifth: Bay Trail maxes out at 1.5GHz, Rangeley at 2.4GHz. (Both non-turbo) Is that enough, or shall I continue? Jim___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
I am. I have. I'm trying to be patient and professional. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:47, Sean Colins s...@corequick.com wrote: Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this? On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman ryanjc...@me.com wrote: Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIe6zqb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CQjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYr3d8KpF1D ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS921J5yXBNMUQsII6XCNOqr0VVBYSejjod7bMUsr79FI3DCn3oVdd-ZT7ztfS0aJmfyPsH5undSH7NpKlyLbC_YxtSPb_nVN4sCVtXHTbFECzB_zhOesd7dQkumKzp55mXbfaxVZicHs3jqpJATvAn3hOYyyODtUTsSjDdqymovaAWsIXjUk_w0e2qKMM-l9OwXn3VkCrfBipsxlK5LE2zVkDjBDqv2DY01dLKnodwLQzh0qmRDhzUkYQKCy0eAWXYvxrPh0g-pz_wq810b1dwQgr10Qg20m2q8AMroudVHDmk1gq ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0q43qb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CSjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYriex-wjKS ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Neither do accusations that a discussion that is VERY MUCH related to this list has no place on this list. Just because it does not relate to what YOU use pfsense for doesn’t mean it does not belong. If that were the case most of the emails I get on a daily basis have no place on this list. Think of the others here instead of yourself, please. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:23, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Ryan, Profanity and personal attacks have no place on this list. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:12, Ryan Coleman ryanjc...@me.com wrote: Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
::applause:: I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have sent it privately instead of publicly. — Ryan On Jul 22, 2014, at 21:15, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thompson wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. Respectfully, I disagree. Given the APU is - as the de facto successor to the ALIX - likely to be a piece of hardware used in a lot of new pfSense installs, discussion about its merits and drawbacks (in a pfSense context) strikes me as being *entirely* on topic. Certainly if heat dissipation is going to be a concern with this unit in long-term deployments, and given the 24/7/365 nature of firewalls, that's very relevant to pfSense and something for which we as a community need to be finding solutions. Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote: I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have sent it privately instead of publicly. I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim. (I certainly don't have any intention of being anyone's mum) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
It is my believe that we all are on this list, in this discussion, because we have a requirement, desire and/or need of a solid network security solution. I applaud the community as a whole for making pfSense a product for that is available for the societal masses. #respect Give me your low TTL, your latent, your packets en mass yearning to be delivered freely fore pfSense shall protect us all. We all have bad days, none of us always use the most proper words. There is no use for us to be divided, we are stronger together. Lest we all put this quarrel to rest and move forward, forge ahead without complication. We all deserve a congratulation, especially not me, for furthering a unified vision that WE ALL have. -- Blake Cornell CTO, Integris Security LLC 501 Franklin Ave, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 USA http://www.integrissecurity.com/ O: +1(516)750-0478 M: +1(516)900-2193 PGP: CF42 5262 AE68 4AC7 591B 2C5B C34C 7FAB 4660 F572 Free Tools: https://www.integrissecurity.com/SecurityTools Follow us on Twitter: @integrissec On 07/22/2014 11:18 PM, Chris Bagnall wrote: On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote: I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have sent it privately instead of publicly. I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim. (I certainly don't have any intention of being anyone's mum) Kind regards, Chris ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Sorry, that was at our wonderful list mom. I should have noted it that way. On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:18, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote: I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have sent it privately instead of publicly. I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim. (I certainly don't have any intention of being anyone's mum) Kind regards, Chris -- This email is made from 100% recycled electrons ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4
Actually the margin is more like $250 - the board, case, SD all cost about $145 if you buy them from PCEngines. My fleecing comment is based on the lack of a statement that says if you don’t want the support you can look at this model, or give an option to opt out of the support. Also calling it simply APU4 implies that it is 3 versions BETTER than their APU1C4 - it should be APU4-KIT or BUILT or something like that to differentiate between them. I love my Alix. The base parts is a good price. The extra cost without other information is not a good business practice and is, indeed, trying to get people to spend more money on something that they don’t have to (not saying they shouldn’t) is bad. I never ripped into him for that - he publicly told me to take it off the list when he should have privately. In fact I thought the message WAS private until my phone lit up with responses. I’ve been on mailing lists since 1996 and I’ve never been called out like that publicly by a moderator without advance warning. — ryan On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:30, Walter Parker walt...@gmail.com wrote: I see a few things going on here: From the Netgate site, the difference between the APU1C and the APU1C4 DIY kits is 2GB vs 4GB. The Kits are $179 and $199 and include the board, a case and power plug. The kit from PCEngines is just the board (I don't see any that says it comes with a plug or a case). The plugs on PCEngines are not in stock. Some of the cases are out of stock. Prior emails on this list have indicated that the older versions of the case (for the alix) didn't quite fit the APU and therefore had a thermial problem due to poor contact. The Netgate cases are the new style that doesn't have the problem. The assembled systems from Netgate are $299, which means the price breakdown is: $179 for the Board, case and plug (PC Engines price for all of this is $150 if you order more than 500 units) $22 for the flash card $99 One year of pfSense support That leaves Netgate with a whole $6 over the price of the DIY kit (which was $30 more than PC Engines, but to get PC Engine's price, you have to buy $75,000 worth of hardware). I bought my Alix from netgate and it was a good price. This new item is a good price. You are unlikely to find the hardware for less money once you include the $99 add on from pfSense support. I did find Ryan's initial email to be a bit rude. What is it with people that assume that because a company wants to make a profit that they are fleecing people? The $6 margin on a $299 product hardly seem like a rip off (my time is worth a lot more than that). And you get a tested system with a warranty. Look at the prices for the Intel systems, they tend to run double once you include all the features. And have some class, Jim is one of the good guys, doing great work with Netgate and pfSense. Ripping on him because he asked that sales types questions for a vendor product be sent to the vendor is not a bad request (the pfSense vendors do read this list). On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jim Thompson j...@smallworks.com wrote: I am. I have. I'm trying to be patient and professional. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:47, Sean Colins s...@corequick.com wrote: Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this? On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman ryanjc...@me.com wrote: Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson j...@netgate.com wrote: Very little if this thread is related to pfSense. Please stay on topic. -- Jim On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall pfse...@lists.minotaur.cc wrote: On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote: I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with the case? The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips and the base of the chassis. It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 22C at this time of year. Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in place by 'screws and hex nuts'? 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases. What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from outside, after the installation? There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible externally after installation. (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for anything
