Sorry, wrong box. It's: $ sysctl | grep deg hw.sensors.cpu0.temp0=71.00 degC hw.sensors.cpu1.temp0=71.00 degC Best regards, Nikola Gyurov
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Nikola Gyurov <ngyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, OpenBSD is slightly changing syntax over time, but the > changes from a version to another are trivial and easy to implement. > The bigest one I can remember was introduced in 4.7 with the changing > of the redirection etc. > > As for the configuration generation on pfSense - while most of the > things on OpenBSD just work, working with another config rarely > happens :) > What I meant was that he can generate his config on pfSense so he'd > have a general idea of what does he need, then rewrite it to work on > OpenBSD - could be tricky, but not impossible. > A good guide to PF (if not the best) is Peter Hansteen's 'The Book of > PF', 2nd edition --> http://nostarch.com/pf2.htm > > @Chris, are you actually running on 127 degC? NS (now TI) do produce > some tough hw! > > These are my temp stats on the 6501-50 with two WD HDDs in the box: > $ sysctl | grep deg > hw.sensors.cpu0.temp0=34.00 degC > hw.sensors.cpu1.temp0=34.00 degC > hw.sensors.acpitz0.temp0=43.00 degC (zone temperature) > hw.sensors.acpitz1.temp0=43.00 degC (zone temperature) > > Best regards, > Nikola Gyurov > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Christopher Hilton <ch...@vindaloo.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sep 10, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Nikola Gyurov <ngyu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> If you don't reqiure custom modifications all the time, no different >>> user access to the interface etc. you could just create the pf.conf >>> and use it on an OpenBSD installation (this is what I use, other BSDs >>> may be fine too). It wouldn't need as much RAM as pfSense. >>> >>> However, this wouldn't help with the throughput limits. >>> >> >> OpenBSD may or may not be a big help here. The OpenBSD team has done a lot >> of work on pf since the version that's in pfsense was released. Some of the >> work was performances based and that may be enough to get the job done on >> net4801 hardware for you. More on that later. One big change was a pf.conf >> syntax change regarding how NAT is handled which happened with OpenBSD 4.5. >> If you are using NAT, I would _not_ count on a pfsense generated >> configuration to work in OpenBSD 4.5+ >> >> Otherwise, the news if very good. If my research is correct the OpenBSD team >> has gained big performance increases in both their network stack and pf many >> of which aren't reflected in pfsense. According to this talk: >> >> youtube.com/watch?v=VNyBAcO2pIg [20:15] >> >> they roughly doubled the throughput of pf and their network stack from >> 28Mbit / sec to 56Mbit / sec on "low end Soekris" hardware. They don't >> specify the hardware beyond "low end Soekris" but when they say low end I >> assume that they mean a 45xx or a 48xx. I myself have tested 55xx and 65xx >> hardware and find that you can achieve 80 ~ 90 Mbit/sec with OpenBSD on the >> net5501 with the standard 100Mbit/s vr interfaces. To go faster you'll need >> to install a good Gigabit NIC in the net5501's PCI slot. The net5501 will >> keep up with the traffic but in this configuration, with a dual intel em PCI >> NICs I get lot's of heat. If the high heat bothers you, save yourself some >> time and opt for the net6501 or go for a rack mount chassis and plan on >> adding a fan. >> >> $ sysctl -a | grep deg >> hw.sensors.nsclpcsio0.temp0=92.00 degC (Remote) >> hw.sensors.nsclpcsio0.temp1=127.00 degC (Remote) >> hw.sensors.nsclpcsio0.temp2=70.00 degC (Local) >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> -- Chris >> _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list Soekris-tech@lists.soekris.com http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
