@heper OK. I realized my ISP also has iperf3 server listening so I tried that instead of speedtest. I attached a virtio vtnet interface to pfsense and made a better comparison with single vs. parallel flows, IPv4 vs. IPv6, and coming from physical port (ix) vs. virtio (vtnet). WAN is always physical port. You had right, I think it is related to tx/rx queue issue you also linked above. My test results show a single flow (ix or vtnet) can support around 5Gb/s on my system (packet filtering enabled). If I enable parallel, ix reaches to 9Gb/s, it does not matter IPv4 (NAT) or v6 (no NAT), and it consumes around 70% CPU (4 cores). However, when using vtnet with parallel flow, neither throughput nor CPU use changes and it is still around 5-6Gb/s (similar to single flow). It is actually very good for a single flow (as good as physical) and CPU consumption is not different (only a few percents higher maybe).

@viragomann I can confirm your diagnosys, removing the "10" IP, now the sessions from external "10" to "100" work and are stable. Thank you very much again.

Hi, I have pfSense 22.05 virtualized in proxmox 7.3: I had strange network performance issue with it and also with a plain debian install. Turned out issue was NIC used (intel 210) belonged to a PCIE card, while in proxmox grub I had pcie passthrough option active: once removed all back to normal. Not sure if that could be related though

@ar-ptg-co I would suspect that it doesn't come with support other than here at the forum since it's a Microsoft product...anymore and you should expect to pay; let hope that support staff verify.

@gulzoa712 You need to provide a diagram of your network. Why are you using two routers on the same segment? Separate the pfsense network from your other segment.

@urbaman75 I would restore the existing config on the new, then reassign the vlans to the new interfaces. Worked fine for me in the past.

 So first I did not have my adaptors setup and it was wanting me to setup a vlan through a cryptic command line, then I could not access it because my router had the same IP now finally I can continue following the course. I did try to change the IP through the cryptic menu and that did not work out. So I went back and changed the IP on my linksys. that was less complex. Maybe changing the ip the web access works better.

@provels Thanks a bunch! Mediacom had to send out a tech and then a follow maintenance truck to find and remove the problem in my neighborhood and they finished an hour ago. Speed is running 20% over what I'm supposed to get with zero packet loss.

**** UPDATE **** I found that there was a new FIRMWARE update for the HP 331T-Quad card, and I applied it. It is like 2 versions higher now than where it was. Did a brand new install of Proxmox, and enabled the IOMMU settings. Still seeing the PCI Bus errors, and found an article to add 'pci=nommconf' to the loader.conf section. Been running more than 2 hours - no PCI Bus errors. So I built a new pfSense VM and added the PCI directly for 0000:01:00.0 and 0000:01:00.1 as two NICs to the VM (direct access not virtualized ports). Software installs - but only one Interface is seen (not 2)....and just repeated errors about a Firmware Link - over and over and over. Oh Well - according to UPS, my INTEL i5-T4V2 card should be here tomorrow.

@patch Somewhat understand your answer. I have tried passing 2 ports of the 4-port NIC card as separate ports to pfSense VM (see below - 1:00.0 and 1:00.1) - but when the VM starts, only one of them is seen. [image: 1670775263238-7ebdcfc5-dc63-422f-91f2-953f786cdc1d-image.png] This is why I asked can I just pass-thru the WAN port and use paravirtualized as the LAN port? Any advantages to this? Disadvantages I understand if I have to backup or restore, I cannot unless everything is virtualized. I have pfSense running on an HP T620+ ThinClient which once I move - will be stored as a backup router/firewall in case something happens with Proxmox.

A solved same problem by tunring on "Disable hardware TCP segmentation offload" and "Disable hardware large receive offload" options in System->Advanced->Networking

Update: Found the culprit, something around the traffic shaper is messing it up, when I remove the traffic shaper rules, it went up to 315/110. But when I introduce traffic shaper speed limit (even if the upload is set at 100), the upload speed goes down to 60. Very odd, considering how my traffic shaper settings are identical on both routers. I’ll play around with the traffic shaper.