Any issues with i210 / i211 & i350 on OPNSense 20.x ?

[PWCDC]

1) I simply dont understand why pcengines switched away from i210 and use i211 in their higher numbered APUs (APU4, APU5, APU6, these are not even listed on pcengines.ch, the secrecy inner workings of this swiss company is  confusing as hell to me). As you all should be aware i211 is inferior to i210...

I don't understand a lot of your post, but I do understand human nature. Usually when a company/manufacturer makes a decision to downgrade a product, but give it a higher model number, the reason is usually always "money".

I would wager the i211 is cheaper to build.

[thowe]

It's perfectly normal that there are hardware components with different performance. It does not always have to be the fastest one. Rather, everything has to be coordinated and fulfill the purpose. And price and power consumption also play a role for certain applications.

And for me, the APUs are very sensible low-cost devices. Whether with i210 or i211. In practice, this does not necessarily make a big difference.

And if it has to be more performance, there are many other solutions. But then they also cost more. And burn more energy.

But we are a bit off topic. That the i211 makes problems here is not caused by PC Engines but a fundamentally different problem.

[astromeier]

Hi all!
For months now I'm running the actual opnsense versions on my hardware Qotom Q370G4 ram8G ssd256G
with no issues regarding link state up/down changes!
The ports are connected to
Cisco cable modem EPC 3212
2x TP-Link switches TL-SG108E
LogiLink switch NS0106

I'm happy 

[alessandrocossar]

Has this been fixed? I am running qotom-like system, with 4 i211 NICs and the interfaces get randomly disconnected many times per day (~once per hour). All interfaces are connected to Unifi switches.
Running a fresh install of OPNsense 21.1.7

[gwww]

An update on this topic...

I just updated from 20.1.x to 22.1 (beta, latest as of ~Dec 28). I really could not stay on 20.1 any longer as security updates are critical (for any network!).

Problem still exists. It has happened twice in about 40 hours.

I'm running a Qotom with four i211 Ethernet ports.

More details in the thread I started here: https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=20456.0

Example log message:
    2022-01-01T00:33:28-05:00 Error opnsense-devel   /usr/local/etc/rc.linkup: DEVD: Ethernet detached event for static lan(igb1)

It seemed to be related to EEE in 20.1 and disabling EEE kept the network very stable (like 100s of days with interface flapping).

I'm investigating the EEE settings in 22.1. What else can be done to diagnose this?

[testo_cz]

Have you tried to install a switch between your OPNsense and ISP;s equipment ?
Namely some switch with controllable EEE , so you could additionally control EEE of the counterpart to your i211.

Seems to me that disabling EEE on your i211 NICs is necessary regardless how much the FreeBSD driver is being updated & bugfixed. So I would ruled out the driver from the list of possible causes.

[bandit8623]

PS C:\Program Files\Hrping> .\hrping.exe 192.168.2.1 -t
This is hrPING v5.07.1149 by cFos Software GmbH -- http://www.cfos.de

Source address is 192.168.2.224; using ICMP echo-request, ID=246f
Pinging 192.168.2.1 [192.168.2.1]
with 32 bytes data (60 bytes IP):

setsockopt IP_HDRINCL failed: Error 10013: An attempt was made to access a socket in a way forbidden by its access permissions.
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0001 TTL=64 ID=64c9 time=0.454ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0002 TTL=64 ID=0c66 time=0.392ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0003 TTL=64 ID=13b9 time=0.425ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0004 TTL=64 ID=077d time=0.402ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0005 TTL=64 ID=8630 time=0.408ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0006 TTL=64 ID=60d1 time=0.346ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0007 TTL=64 ID=409c time=0.437ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0008 TTL=64 ID=cf86 time=0.425ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0009 TTL=64 ID=4313 time=0.449ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000a TTL=64 ID=e4f0 time=0.422ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000b TTL=64 ID=8098 time=0.384ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000c TTL=64 ID=f150 time=0.409ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000d TTL=64 ID=c33f time=0.337ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000e TTL=64 ID=0857 time=0.428ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000f TTL=64 ID=3721 time=0.434ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0010 TTL=64 ID=eac0 time=0.401ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0011 TTL=64 ID=2a48 time=0.486ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0012 TTL=64 ID=c82b time=0.413ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0013 TTL=64 ID=c2b5 time=0.369ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0014 TTL=64 ID=4600 time=0.409ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0015 TTL=64 ID=d4bb time=0.403ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0016 TTL=64 ID=18d3 time=0.400ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0017 TTL=64 ID=43d3 time=0.402ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0018 TTL=64 ID=8b08 time=0.426ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0019 TTL=64 ID=d940 time=0.299ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001a TTL=64 ID=72ac time=0.366ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001b TTL=64 ID=7d4c time=0.405ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001c TTL=64 ID=8ac4 time=0.407ms
[Aborting...]

Packets: sent=28, rcvd=28, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 13.501999 sec
RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 0.299 / 0.404 / 0.486 / 0.036
Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.124, rcvd=0.124
PS C:\Program Files\Hrping> .\hrping.exe 192.168.2.1 -t
This is hrPING v5.07.1149 by cFos Software GmbH -- http://www.cfos.de

Source address is 192.168.2.224; using ICMP echo-request, ID=884c
Pinging 192.168.2.1 [192.168.2.1]
with 32 bytes data (60 bytes IP):

setsockopt IP_HDRINCL failed: Error 10013: An attempt was made to access a socket in a way forbidden by its access permissions.
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0001 TTL=64 ID=8790 time=0.275ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0002 TTL=64 ID=073c time=0.263ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0003 TTL=64 ID=f4b9 time=0.297ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0004 TTL=64 ID=eeaa time=0.274ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0005 TTL=64 ID=4512 time=0.203ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0006 TTL=64 ID=a8e4 time=0.273ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0007 TTL=64 ID=ae4a time=0.284ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0008 TTL=64 ID=ab11 time=0.255ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0009 TTL=64 ID=c840 time=0.291ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000a TTL=64 ID=0ef1 time=0.261ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000b TTL=64 ID=8e7a time=0.266ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000c TTL=64 ID=a4ff time=0.246ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000d TTL=64 ID=6a43 time=0.247ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000e TTL=64 ID=631b time=0.256ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=000f TTL=64 ID=9ca2 time=0.284ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0010 TTL=64 ID=f874 time=0.242ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0011 TTL=64 ID=3b3b time=0.234ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0012 TTL=64 ID=9937 time=0.279ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0013 TTL=64 ID=4fc9 time=0.240ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0014 TTL=64 ID=4153 time=0.287ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0015 TTL=64 ID=9ceb time=0.270ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0016 TTL=64 ID=400e time=0.301ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0017 TTL=64 ID=8c82 time=0.273ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0018 TTL=64 ID=2109 time=0.257ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=0019 TTL=64 ID=36ff time=0.229ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001a TTL=64 ID=afb6 time=0.281ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001b TTL=64 ID=1633 time=0.263ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001c TTL=64 ID=5aec time=0.222ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001d TTL=64 ID=c85b time=0.279ms
From 192.168.2.1: bytes=60 seq=001e TTL=64 ID=2d6d time=0.311ms
[Aborting...]

Packets: sent=30, rcvd=30, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 14.514310 sec
RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 0.203 / 0.264 / 0.311 / 0.024
Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.124, rcvd=0.124
PS C:\Program Files\Hrping>

Wanted to share my findings.  changed from a qotom 6 port i211 to a supermicro x11 with 4 i210 ports.  Red is the i211.
green is i210

pretty much proves the i210 is better.  this test was done with the exact same opnsense cfg and done within 1 hour of each other.  i210 more consistent and lower latency.

the x11 does have a faster processor,  but shouldnt have anything to do with this as i could hit 1gbps speeds without hitting 50% cpu on the qotom.