Connect. Communicate. Collaborate. Securely.

Home » Kerio User Forums » Kerio Control » Software appliance, CPU picking
  •  
Jolmic

Messages: 5
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
At the moment planning a new control box for a small site.
Configuration will be straight forward,
3x 1Gbps LAN interfaces, 2x 100mbit WAN interfaces going loadbalance, 1 Kerio VPN site2site for management purposes.
Maybe with Antivirus, perhaps in future.

As I want to build this on diy hardware, I'm going to use a ITX platform with a quad intelike server NIC.

However I'm wondering what CPU would perform better.
-dual core 2ghz (2.5 turbo) Celeron
OR
-quad core 1.5ghz (2.2 turbo) Celeron

Does Kerio control effective multithread or would I better go for higher clock speeds on lower core count?

Thank you for your suggestions!


  •  
Morgan H. (Kerio)

Messages: 21
Karma: 2
Send a private message to this user
Jolmic,

What kind of throughput are you trying to achieve?

Personally I would chose the quad as the turbo is so close and the multiple threads benefit you more than the single slightly faster dual core. If you are going to go ITX, I would recommend avoiding celeron though. If you are looking for anything close to 1Gb across routed networks, you are going to need 3.5+ GHz due to the way snort is implemented (can only use a single core).
  •  
Jolmic

Messages: 5
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
Hello Morgan, thank you for your answer.

Throughput would be most likely high pps instead of high bandwith demand, as we are planning with strong WIFI coverage (Ubiquiti Unifi HW). Rougly 100 mobile devices, and around 40 fixed work spaces, mainly using VOIP, Citrix and a HTML5 based business application.

As therefor i was wondering how Control would scale on multi thread CPU's, the well known multi-threads vs single-core performance debate Wink
But perhaps, i'm indeed better off picking a 2 or 4 core Xeon, but yet, a low Ghz 4 core, or high ghz 2 core ?
(as i'm a bit limited in server dimension's and cooling, it must be very small and able to run in a uncooled environment, hence the ITX)
  •  
Morgan H. (Kerio)

Messages: 21
Karma: 2
Send a private message to this user
Jolmic,

If you are doing any sort of packet inspection, that is where you need the high clock speed. I haven't done any varying PPS testing. Is that traffic inside or going outside the network? As far as I know the rest of the routing is going through the linux kernel and will be multithreaded.

As foolish as it may sound, I would recommend staying away from the Xeons. They are typically higher TDP processors usually aimed at multi-threaded environments.

Try going with one of the Consumer Intel branch. The i5 is the sweet spot as the 3-4 logical cores is optimal with significantly diminishing returns afterward. We chose the i5 4570S for our NG500. The S variants are clocked a little lower with a significantly lower TDP.

The only thing I really see you sacrificing with not having a Xeon is ECC Memory which for a router should be unnecessary.
Previous Topic: Anti virus update fails
Next Topic: Kerio Control VPN Client 9.2.3 fails to install on Windows 10 Version 1703
Goto Forum:
  


Disclaimer:
Kerio discussion forums are intended for open communication between forum members and may contain information and material posted by members which may be useful in learning about Kerio products. The discussion forums are not intended to provide technical support for any specific product. Any information implied or expressed in the discussion forums is that of the posting member. Kerio is in no way responsible for the information posted in the forums, or its accuracy. Kerio employees may participate in the discussions, but their postings do not represent an offical position of the company on any issues raised or discussed. Kerio reserves the right to monitor and maintain the forums to promote free and accurate exchange of information.

Current Time: Mon Oct 23 11:59:14 CEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00438 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.
Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.4.