Home Forums MOCHAbin Forum Hardware discussions SFP and SFP+ ports


Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
  • #50313

    FYI, I have inserted a few different brands of 1G SX SFP’s into my SFP port and they all seem to work (cisco compatible, extreme compatible, generic).

    My SFP and SFP+ ports seem to be swapped from the picture I’ve seen on the kickstarter page. My SFP port is on the outside and the SFP+ port is next to the wired WAN ethernet port.

    My SFP modules do not work in the SFP+ port. This is not uncommon though.

    Overall, this is great and I’m glad we don’t need to buy special SFP modules. Thanks!


    Are you certain? I just found in the commit message for OpenWRT something I missed in the block diagram. That the WAN and SFP port share a single port chip, the 88e1512. So only one of those ports can be used at a time. If you are using the WAN port perhaps its messing with the SFP port?



    Interesting. I can see the SFP and the link shows as UP on both ends when the fiber is plugged in. I have not tried sending traffic across it though. I will try this and report back.


    Also, I have an SFP+ port coming next week for my Juniper switch. I will be able to test all of them at the same time with the included Ubuntu 18.04 distribution. Is there an OpenWRT image available yet? Can you put it on a USB stick and boot it without wiping out the Ubuntu on the MMC?


    Thanks for looking at that. I was not an early bird so no board yet. I took some time and looked at the block diagram and the chip capabilities after finding this info and here is what I found.

    SFP+ is directly supported by the CPU so can get solid 10Gbps to the CPU

    WAN & SFP share the same 88E1512 1 Gbps chip so only 1 may be used at a time and 1Gbps max back to CPU

    The 4 Port Switch is connected to a 88E6141 which looks from the block diagram to be connected via 1 uplink to the CPU, that uplink is only good for either 1Gbps or 2.5Gbps based on how its configured. So we may be able to feed data to the board at 10Gbps but at no point can we saturate that link unless using a combination of the 1Gbps for Wan/SFP and 2.5Gbps to the 4 1Gbps ports and maybe writing to SSD and transmitting over wifi.


    Post is getting blocked with links. I had to removed the htt… part at the start of those 2 links

    I’m not certain about the logistics of installs yet. Based on what I have read It sounds like the answer will be no, that you will have to alter the install each time because it cant boot off the SSD’s.


    Found that linked from cybermind.fr/en/2022/03/08/MochaBin-5G-GlobalScaleTechnologies-Operating-System-Review/

    I have seen one person on twitter trying to get freeBSD to boot but seems its not working.


    The default configuration in Ubuntu confirms that the 1Gps SFP and the WAN port share resources. They are bonded together and failover. I tested this with both, copper 1Gbps, and Fiber 1Gbps and it works as suggested.

    eth0 is the fiber SFP, eth2 is the copper 1000baseT WAN

    # bonding eth0 & eth2 with active-backup mode
    auto eth0
    iface eth0 inet manual
    bond-master bond0

    auto eth2
    iface eth2 inet manual
    bond-master bond0
    bond-primary eth2

    auto bond0
    iface bond0 inet dhcp
    bond-mode active-backup
    bond-miimon 100
    bond-slaves none


    Cool, thanks for the update!


    I was wrong above.

    1. eth0 is the SFP+ and is on the outside of the board. It takes SFP or SFP+ modules. Both seem to work.
    2. eth2 can either be the SFP to the right of the POE power supply or the copper RJ-45 to the left of the POE power supply (WAN port). If an SFP transceiver is plugged in (whether or not a fiber is plugged in), the RJ-45 seems to be disabled even if it has a cable plugged in.
    3. The default configuration in Ubuntu and OpenWRT bond eth0 and eth2 making both fiber ports and one WAN port all be the same logical connection.


    One more observation:

    In OpenWRT, the SFP fiber port can operate by itself as eth2 over fiber as expected.
    In Ubuntu shipped on the mmc, the SFP port isn’t working. It thinks it’s copper, not fiber.
    Trying to set it to fibre, doesn’t work: ethtool -s eth2 port fibre


    Just installed arch linux and with kernel 5.16, I have to choose between my 1G SFP or the WAN POE, both don’t works.
    So my setup now is 10Gbps to the switch and the board is powered with POE and admin interface is on the WAN.

    Btw it’s not a 1Gbps port, it’s a 2,5Gbps port.


    That’s what I expected.

    “Btw it’s not a 1Gbps port, it’s a 2,5Gbps port.”
    Are you referring to eth2? I don’t have any of those to try.
    If you install a transceiver in the SFP, does it disable the WAN POE port like on OpenWRT?


    On my arch linux I have:

    eth0: 10Gbps
    eth1: 2,5Gbps (I suppose it’s the SFP one)
    eth2: 1Gbps (WAN POE)

    [ 8.997956] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth0: configuring for inband/10gbase-r link mode
    [ 9.012377] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth1: configuring for fixed/2500base-x link mode
    [ 9.020489] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth1: Link is Up – 2.5Gbps/Full – flow control off
    [ 9.054435] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth2: PHY [f212a200.mdio-mii:01] driver [Marvell 88E1510] (irq=POLL)
    [ 9.064028] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth2: configuring for phy/rgmii-id link mode
    [ 9.072596] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth1: Link is Down
    [ 9.079022] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth1: configuring for fixed/2500base-x link mode
    [ 9.086889] mvpp2 f2000000.ethernet eth1: Link is Up – 2.5Gbps/Full – flow control off

    The 2,5 Gbps is not a real surprise as I already have a machiatobin with the same hardware (mvpp) and there is also a 1Gbps/2,5Gbps port that I use for my fiber access.


    When I plug an 1Gbps fiber transceiver into the SFP slot, it shows up as eth2 and it disables the WAN eth2 port. I can’t find any way to access eth1.


    Hmm interesting the fiber is not working, sounds like they may have either a driver issue or a compatibility issue.

    On the 2.5Gbps will be interesting to see if in testing it really is.

    I’m still kind of put out with them not answering questions on the kickstarter page, and also having and indiegogo running now too.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Signup to our newsletter

Technical specification tables can not be displayed on mobile. Please view on desktop