It seems this could be an ISP issue now, I am still troubleshooting, changed nothing and am now getting around 850 mbps
https://twitter.com/MathesonStep/status/1362429291838001154

@raitd said in vmx NIC ordering for pfSense on vSphere 5.5+:

@jimp I've seen many linux distro's handle having several nics in vmware and handle adding more perfectly fine.

Linux is vastly different in their default naming schemes. The current default names in Linux are based on bus locations which likely wouldn't change in those cases. FreeBSD counts up from 0 for each instance of the driver it finds when probing, so if the probe order changes, so does the NIC assignment order.

Does pfSense / FreeBSD have an option where you can force binding to a particular MAC address? If so I imagine many people would love to have this as a selectable option.

No.

@bullz3y3 Have same issue in 2021, and fixed by changing the Network Type from Virtio to e1000 also. Your finding in 2015 is still helping others. Thanks.

My case is having a PCI Passthrough WAN, and 2 bridge LAN, hosted on KVM on debian 10

@talaverde the only thing that is actually of interest to me is whether a solution is within reach / uncomplicated nearness. Therefore I think it is unnecessary to open an extra thread ...

Hi,

I decide to do a clean install of 2.5.0 RC on my backup firewall.
Everything is vanilla, and same problem appear. I was thinking maybe this was only an VMware/pfSense bug.

image001(1).jpg
After RESET LOG FILES under Status - System logs
image001.jpg

@thejaguar I already figured it out... working now with no problems. You only need to change to static ip every time you connect to mngt port.

@teamits Oh man I completely missed that! I'll submit something now. Thanks!

@robca402 If anyone ever see this, my problem was that I needed to toggle the AES CPU flag on in proxmox

@oiyae

How has it been going since?

How did you get them to offer up a SH4 by the way, the people you usually speak to are non-=technical and quite often refuse

@maverickws

have you checked iperf3 speeds between pfsense and xcp-ng itself?
Mine is bad. Additionally from pfsense to xcp-ng it has many retries during transfer

@viragomann

Hi.

I hadn't followed that guide, I had completed everything but disable the hardware checksum offload, once disabled it did the trick, all working fine now.

Does that mean the connection was just simply timing out?

Thank you for the hint, much appreciated.

Phill

@johnpoz said in iperf3 speeds confusing - fast = bad internet slow = good internet?:

I would still like to see test through pfsense vs to or from pfsense.

If you can give me an idea of how to perform that test I would be happy to do so.

Otherwise, yes I can get my full 1500/1000 (or slightly above on the downstream) WAN throughput consistently even with pfNG + Suricata running).

However just like the iperf tests show, the upload speeds are not quite as good as download/ingress speeds.

What I mean by that is - while I can generally get 1500-1600 Mbit/s down, the upload is rarely faster than 800-850 Mbit. I'm testing from a 10Gbe connected VM by the way. While understand there is overhead involved I couldn't help be curious about the iperf tests showing FAR slower network speeds TO pfsense compared to FROM pfsense.

I don't always put too much weight on internet speed testing as it's out of my control when it's past the gateway anyways.

@eiger3970 said in Can my hotspot send Internet into my hypervisor machine?:

The machine with the hypervisor Proxmox seems to have trouble installing this.

it will help: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Pci_passthrough
😉

Hi, same problem today NOT WITH VMWARE, but using KVM and virtio... guess the problem is bigger than expected and impacting way more systems

@routethebyte said in PFSense on KVM Proxmox - Suricata/Snort performance issues:

@bmeeks I've tried every mode. They give the same result. I'm honestly considering running it bare metal on something but I love Proxmox and really like it virtualized.

I am not familiar with Proxmox. I use VMware products. An IDS/IPS can be very demanding on a system, but I would not generally expect a performance hit as large as you are seeing. If you want to run virtualized, I would try a VMware product such as ESXi (there is a free version you could experiment with). Many folks run pfSense and its packages on ESXi without issue. There have been quite a few reports of various issues on other hypervisors. Hypervisors will all use virtual NICs (unless you pass-through a dedicated hardware NIC to the virtual machine). How well the software undergirding the virtual NIC works with applications like an IDS/IPS is what determines performance.

Bare metal is always going to be faster than virtualization given the same underlying hardware. But do not expect full line speed with an IDS/IPS running with a fairly heavy ruleset.

@daddygo said in Multiqueue on virtio NIC:

BTW:

Ok, so in summary it is not possible to use multiqueue because the virtio driver is compiled with ALTQ support enabled. Either you recompile the kernel (so you will have a kernel with multiqueue support on the virtio but without support for ALTQ) or it is not possible.

Very thanks !!!

Luca

It is stange but ping appeared after 5 minutes from last pinging try.
ShooterScreenshot-29-02-01-21.png