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

Reply via email to