Wow!! STH gets around! Patrick should be proud?
I have added one in a "side car" configuration. Just dremeled a slot in the side for a flex riser and bolted the cards braket to the side. I did have stability issues untill I soldered a +12v to the riser. Can share pictures later this week.I've been running Pfsense and Opnsense on one of these (CX-770) for a couple years. Recently got 10 gig internet and had to move to another device... Has anyone used a riser cable and put a 10g Nic in one of these? Any pics of how the card is contained?
The PCI-E slot is also backward, but I can confirm risers matching search terms "IBM x3550 x3650 M2 M3, FRU 43V7067 PCIe" do fit the 770's slot. While they physically fit the slot, I don't know if they are actually functional. Assuming they are functional, you'd need to find a card with proper dimensions to fit inside the case while avoiding the CPU heatsink, then do a little sheetmetal work. I wish you the best of luck, and please post here if you find the right card.I've been running Pfsense and Opnsense on one of these (CX-770) for a couple years. Recently got 10 gig internet and had to move to another device... Has anyone used a riser cable and put a 10g Nic in one of these? Any pics of how the card is contained?
Performance
Both the I210 and I347-AT4 are Gigabit Ethernet controllers, capable of speeds up to 1 Gbps
6
7
. In terms of raw throughput, they should perform similarly for most home and small business applications.Features
I210:
I347-AT4:
- Single-port controller
- Supports advanced features like Intel Virtualization Technology for Connectivity (VT-c)
- Optimized for server and network appliance use
Reliability and Support
- Quad-port controller
- Designed for desktop and mobile applications
- Supports basic networking features
Intel is known for providing long-term driver support and reliability for their networking products
1
. Both controllers should benefit from this, but the I210 may have an edge in terms of longevity and enterprise-grade reliability.Use Case Considerations
For a WAN connection, a single-port controller like the I210 is typically sufficient. However, for your LAN, the quad-port I347-AT4 could provide more flexibility, allowing you to connect multiple devices or set up link aggregation for increased bandwidth
2
.Recommendation
For your specific use case:
However, if you only need a single port for both WAN and LAN, the I210 might be the better overall choice due to its advanced features and server-grade design
- WAN: The Intel I210 would be a solid choice due to its optimization for server and network appliance use.
- LAN: The Intel I347-AT4 could be more versatile with its quad-port design, allowing for multiple connections or link aggregation.
8
.Remember that the actual performance difference in a home or small business setting may be negligible, and factors like your internet speed and overall network configuration will likely have a greater impact on your experience than the specific controller model.
The port pairs igb0-igb1 and igb2-igb3 have physical (Fail-to-Wire) bypass capability, meaning they can become the equivalent of cross-over couplers when the 570/770 powers down or reboots. Yes you can and, in most scenarios should, disable bypass in the BIOS. But there's always the danger of fat-fingering the setting back to enabled. For this reason I limit them to LAN side use. Even then I am careful to avoid connecting a potential bypass pair to the same switch. On the other hand, with bypass enabled you can do some interesting things like controlling/inspecting traffic between devices/networks while powered on, yet ensuring connectivity in the event of power loss.I was wondering if any of the NIC's are preferred on these boxes. My notes show: (2) Intel 210I (igb4, igb5) & (4) Intel I347-AT4 (igb0, igb1, igb2, igb3).
I asked perplexity.ai and got this answer
Now I'm wondering what you all think?
I don't have one of these, so this is a bit of a wild guess, but whenever I work with hardware and accessories I try to keep them all of the same 'era'. My guess is that a x520 card maybe 'too new' for the hardware and that an older SFP+ card will work. Of course, the problem with an older card may be lack of software support in the latest pfsense.Whenever I install an SFP+ PCIe NIC (for example Intel X520 or Chelsio), the system hangs at boot — nothing shows up on the serial console (Putty stays blank). Without the card, the unit boots pfSense normally.
I've seen this behavior with other embedded devices when the connector looks like PCIe but has a different pinout than a proper PCIe slot.I don't have one of these, so this is a bit of a wild guess, but whenever I work with hardware and accessories I try to keep them all of the same 'era'. My guess is that a x520 card maybe 'too new' for the hardware and that an older SFP+ card will work. Of course, the problem with an older card may be lack of software support in the latest pfsense.