@keyser said in vmxnet 3 only autoselect available - limited to 1.4GiB/s (10G not working):

If you choose the Intel 1000 adapter i ESXi, it will also show 1000Base-T as a connect option - because the adapter emulates physical hardware.

That's what I would expect. That's what hardware emulation should do.

VMXnet3 is a paravirtual adapter that does not emulate specific physical hardware, but is software only - and software speed limited only.

virtIO is paravirtualized as well. That is all, what I was saying. Above you mentioned paravirtualization as the only reason for not showing any connection speed. But this seems not to be the whole story.
Obviously virtIO signals the operating system that it is a 10Gb hardware, but vmxnet3 does not.

@viragomann

Ok. Thanks.

I have restarted the server. Problem not solved.

The other address i want to ping is a public ip. It is linked to DMZ interface.

It completely depends how you have the VM configured in VBox. If the host NIC is passed to the VM then it would not have a connection using that and would need some other connection via the VM.

Steve

@thatsysadmin

we tested passthrough of the 10G NIC with almost the same results.

Bare metal on the same machine works fine.

I think this is an issue with esxi and pfsense. We see very high interrupts on pfsense during bandwidth testing on ESXI even if we passthrough the NIC.

@lostnil Have any update on your Proxmox throughput issue? Were you ever able to determine if you could route gigabit traffic through your pfSense VM?

I was able to disable it from the shell. Using

My main issue is using my own DHCP server within VirtualBox to now assign an IP to the LAN interface

Hmm, higher throughput with higher MTU like that implies something in that local link it hitting a PPS limit. Mismatched MTU will cause horrible throughput issues generally.

But, yeah as mentioned, the first thing I would be doing here connecting something basic and baremetal to the connection to prove it can do 1Gbps. That really shouldn't be very demanding though.

Steve

@canaparo67 said in Hyper-v processor compatibility fatal trap 1:

amd epyc 7452 32-core

Don't know for sure, but could be an unanticipated condition running a 2013 OS on a 2020 processor. I, on the other hand, run that 2013 OS on a 2008 processor(Intel). LOL

Might need to bust out the credit card. Again.
No help, I know.
734f226f-9f1b-4de8-9db3-84e0a46dae3c-image.png
3cc19c57-739c-4fd7-98a5-13a8cc58ffac-image.png

Although the Redmine Ticket seems to show this fixed back in 2.5.1, your problem seems eerily similar to this one: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/11483. Might be something weird going on with the way Hyper-V is presenting the virtual disks ???

I hit this when I tried using ZFS as the file system with expanding disks. It went runaway and eventually caused an outage.

I've been meaning to go back and try again with a fixed size disk instead of an expanding one, but haven't got around to it yet, and EXT seems to be fine...

Hi,

all on the sameb subnet?
If so this should be problem of proxmox.
Even if u r not able to 'ping' from unifi controller to pfsense.
Are you?

Can the unifi controller reach out to the internet?

regards,

CAT