What's the best price-to-performance build for a pfSense router?

Literally anything(that's optimally not power hungry) and has 2 good NICs can be used for pfsense.

Your ISP router uses some shitty 500MHz MIPS single core.
Old hardware? Put it to use.
Some atom board? Put it to use

>>61378050
I kind of thought pfSense was x86 only, but I might be wrong about that.

What I did is pick up a second hand computer with this board http://ark.intel.com/products/42490/Intel-Desktop-Board-D945GCLF
for $5 on craigslist and slap a spare NIC in it.

It's a monster (for a home use router) and probably way overkill unless you're trying to do traffic shaping. Any old junk computer will work fine, so whatever is x86 and cheap and either has or can be fitted with a 2nd NIC

If you're building your own router make sure it has libreboot firmware

>>61378181
Or, you know... don't, because it doesn't really matter.

>>61378050
Using an old pc is good for initial setup and playing around with settings, you don;t want a 40w router running 24/7 though.

You can get prebuild, low power pf sense boxes that they recommend on their site. they are pricey though. You can also re-purpose the 2 nic gigabyte brix, will have some re-usability after

Final option would be to get an odroid and a usb to gbe adaptor. Ive not tried their arm version though and the other microboards often throttle or have performance issues.

>>61378050
if you want real freedom go for pc engines apu2. they do cost like 200 but you have vendor support for coreboot bios and no psp (amd's equivalent of intel me).

https://www.pcengines.ch/apu2.htm

>>61378441
They max out around 600mbps throughput with basic routing and NAT with PFsense.

Not worth it for anyone on a faster connection.

>>61378050
i3 with a 4130t with an mix mobo and a nice multi port nic is what I use. Mid sized ssd and put the logs on an older hdd. It's been wonderful so far. Bit overkill on the ram but it's repurposing ram that didn't have a use at the time.

>>61378050
i use a 11watt thin client as a one armed router, with VLANS.
As a switch i use the build in switch of a 3watt TP Link wr841nd with openwrt as operating system.
total cost:
Thin client 0 euro (from scrapyard)
Router 25 Euro

I have 6 VLANS and 3 WLAN SSIDs on the router.

and 14 Watt power consumption

pfSense still gets shilled here even after the snowden leaks?!?!

i'm out!

>>61379899
Fuck off moron, trying to avoid the NSA is an exercise in futility. Pretty much any hardware from the last decade is going to have hardware backdoors anyway. Doesn't matter what router OS you wanna use, if you're really doing something to get their attention, you're fucked either way.

>>61379899
What do you use?

Run it in a VM and bridge your physical cards to it

>>61380122
Why? That just increase the attack surface to include your hyporvisor, fantastic.

>>61379921
>don't try x because you are fucked eather way
>don't be scared of software backdors because hardware backdoors exist
you are so dumb, you must be american

>>61379899
What did the snowden leaks tell about pfsense? Got any sources to back that up?

I want to run this on a hypervisor along with another linux distro, it will be the router and the linux vm will go through it as well.
Is there a guide to set this up?

>>61380139
There isn't a better alternative for a laptop that connects to different networks.

>>61378251
No, it matters, considering Intel ME/AMD AMT hardware-level rootkits.

I have a pfsense build back home, I quite like it.

At my apartment though I just use an er-x and a unifi ac lite wap though. Honestly if I did it again I'd probably go with the er-x + unifi ap. Cheaper (only about $120 in total vs. ~$220 when I built my pfsense box) and it's pretty straightforward to setup.

>>61380223
>implying chinese SoCs will have american holes
ikr? It's like they can't wrap their heads around the fact that burgerland has no monopoly on hardware or software design and implementation.

>>61378441
>AMD
Literal garbage

>>61378050
Is that an autism spinnr in the logo

>>61379899

>>61379921
>Reply
>>61380069
>No reply

Typical /g/, nothing constructive ever.