[solved] pfSense (2.6.0 & 22.01 ) is very slow on Hyper-V

ttmcmurry

@bob-dig yep. Thx for validating. 2.5.2 is fine, use that till they resolve the issue.

Bob.Dig

@ttmcmurry said in After Upgrade inter (V)LAN communication is very slow (on Hyper-V).:

2.5.2 is fine, use that till they resolve the issue.

If netgate does, they seem to care only for azure and we all know since the exchange debacle, that the MS Cloud is not the same as MS's server products... So my hopes are rather low on this. Might have to try with DDA once again.

DD

@bob-dig Or we switch to OPNsense which is working ok on the same system where pfSense is not working ok.

Bob.Dig

@dd I couldn't even install OPNsense on hyper-v not long ago, you had to do a trick, and those guys want to use the normal FreeBSD too.
I am stuck, if DDA is not going to work. I have hard time to change my firewall Distro but even more changing my Homserver OS...

DD

@bob-dig They have new version 22.1 which is based on FreeBSD 13 and it's working ok. I have tried it. I think that problem with pfSense 2.6 is because it's based on FreeBSD 12.3. Same problem is with pfSense 2.7.0-DEVELOPMENT which is on FreeBSD 12.3 too. I think, fix will not be available for longer time but they must something to do because now is not pfSense 2.6 (and Plus) useable on Hyper-V.

johnpoz

@dd said in After Upgrade inter (V)LAN communication is very slow (on Hyper-V).:

They have new version 22.1 which is based on FreeBSD 13 and it's working ok.

Huh? 22.01 is using 12.3 same as 2.6

DD

@johnpoz We talked about OPNsense.

Bob.Dig

@dd said in After Upgrade inter (V)LAN communication is very slow (on Hyper-V).:

because now is not pfSense 2.6 (and Plus) useable on Hyper-V.

Thanks for your heads-up regarding OPNsense and FreeBSD Version. But there are many people using the newest pfSense on hyper-v, they resolved their problems it seems, although I don't know what they are exactly doing with it. If you only use it as a firewall and not as a router, that would still work here too or lets say for me at least, your WAN-Speed was and is also affected.

So why is it so different, really making no sense to me.

@dd said in After Upgrade inter (V)LAN communication is very slow (on Hyper-V).:

but they must something to do

I don't think so, we are not paying them and hyper-v isn't used much anyway, so... no.

stephenw10

Are you able to test FreeBSD 12.3 in a similar config?

Bob.Dig

@stephenw10 I can't. Is in the current release this already patched? I can't tell for sure, would be helpful to know.

stephenw10

No, that patch is not in 22.01 or 2.6.

https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src/tree/RELENG_2_6_0/sys/dev/hyperv/pcib

It's not yet in 22.05/2.7 either.

Steve

Bob.Dig

@dd said in After Upgrade inter (V)LAN communication is very slow (on Hyper-V).:

@bob-dig They have new version 22.1 which is based on FreeBSD 13 and it's working ok. I have tried it. I think that problem with pfSense 2.6 is because it's based on FreeBSD 12.3. Same problem is with pfSense 2.7.0-DEVELOPMENT which is on FreeBSD 12.3 too. I think, fix will not be available for longer time but they must something to do because now is not pfSense 2.6 (and Plus) useable on Hyper-V.

I can 100% confirm this, tried it myself. I could also enable all offloading there.

This is from a VM with 4 Cores on another VLAN (and host).

What I had to do on both is disabling VMQ in the virtual NICs in hyper-V, otherwise there were some error messages in the console.

So no problem with FreeBSD 13 on Hyper-V (Server 2022) with the other thingy.

stephenw10

Can anyone seeing this test FreeBSD 12.3 directly?

This could be a simple fix if it's something we are setting in pfSense. Though I'm not sure what it could be.

Steve

m0nji

Just did a simple test

First screenshots shows 2 Windows VMs connected through pfSense 2.6.0(fresh and clean install), all running on Hyper-V.

Second screenshots shows 1 Windows VM connected to a clean FreeBSD 12.3 Install, all running on Hyper-V

stephenw10

Do you see the same thing using iperf3 -c 192.168.189.10 -R as you do if you run the client on 192.168.189.10?

That opens the states the other way so it would be interesting to see if it fails in the opposite direction.

Steve

Bob.Dig

Dammit, if I only knew about the -R thing earlier.

m0nji

@stephenw10
Sure that you want to have a iperf test when the test does not even leave the vm? But no problem:

Here also the tests again from both VMs with the pfSense in between

And also a test between both VMs without pfSense (on the same subnet)

m0nji

If it helps, i also did a test from the Windows VM to the pfSense 2.6.0 VM directly

Thats kind of interesting. So that means the problem just exist when pfSense is in between, doing routing, but it does not exist when the pfSense is a direct target/source. This would also explain, why i don't see this weird results when i do the test with the FreeBSD VM (1st post, second screenshot)

m0nji

Ok did some further testing and i think i can confirm that the problem is FreeBSD 12.3 related, not pfSense specific.

I configured 2 FreeBSD VMs, one 12.3 and one 13.0 with Routing enabled (gateway_enable="YES") so that they can simulate the pfSense.

I then did iperf tests:

Win VM (192.168.189.10) --> FreeBSD 12.3 VM (192.168.187.250 / 192.168.189.250) --> Win VM (192.168.187.11)

PS C:\Users\m0nji\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64> .\iperf3.exe -c 192.168.187.11
Connecting to host 192.168.187.11, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.189.10 port 58723 connected to 192.168.187.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   254 MBytes  2.13 Gbits/sec
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   268 MBytes  2.25 Gbits/sec
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   282 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   302 MBytes  2.53 Gbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   304 MBytes  2.55 Gbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   304 MBytes  2.55 Gbits/sec
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   297 MBytes  2.49 Gbits/sec
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   302 MBytes  2.54 Gbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   294 MBytes  2.47 Gbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   301 MBytes  2.52 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  2.84 GBytes  2.44 Gbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  2.84 GBytes  2.44 Gbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.
PS C:\Users\m0nji\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64> .\iperf3.exe -c 192.168.187.11 -R
Connecting to host 192.168.187.11, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.187.11 is sending
[  4] local 192.168.189.10 port 58726 connected to 192.168.187.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.01   sec  55.6 KBytes   449 Kbits/sec
[  4]   1.01-2.01   sec  21.4 KBytes   175 Kbits/sec
[  4]   2.01-3.00   sec  21.4 KBytes   178 Kbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.01   sec  21.4 KBytes   173 Kbits/sec
[  4]   4.01-5.01   sec  17.1 KBytes   140 Kbits/sec
[  4]   5.01-6.01   sec  21.4 KBytes   175 Kbits/sec
[  4]   6.01-7.01   sec  21.4 KBytes   175 Kbits/sec
[  4]   7.01-8.01   sec  21.4 KBytes   176 Kbits/sec
[  4]   8.01-9.01   sec  15.7 KBytes   128 Kbits/sec
[  4]   9.01-10.01  sec  20.0 KBytes   163 Kbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.01  sec   384 KBytes   314 Kbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.01  sec   237 KBytes   194 Kbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

Win VM (192.168.189.10) --> FreeBSD 13.0 VM (192.168.187.251 / 192.168.189.251) --> Win VM (192.168.187.11)

PS C:\Users\m0nji\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64> .\iperf3.exe -c 192.168.187.11
Connecting to host 192.168.187.11, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.189.10 port 49997 connected to 192.168.187.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   268 MBytes  2.25 Gbits/sec
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   300 MBytes  2.51 Gbits/sec
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   316 MBytes  2.65 Gbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   316 MBytes  2.65 Gbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   318 MBytes  2.67 Gbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   316 MBytes  2.65 Gbits/sec
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   317 MBytes  2.66 Gbits/sec
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   319 MBytes  2.68 Gbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   319 MBytes  2.67 Gbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   316 MBytes  2.65 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  3.03 GBytes  2.60 Gbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  3.03 GBytes  2.60 Gbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.
PS C:\Users\m0nji\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64> .\iperf3.exe -c 192.168.187.11 -R
Connecting to host 192.168.187.11, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.187.11 is sending
[  4] local 192.168.189.10 port 49999 connected to 192.168.187.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   326 MBytes  2.73 Gbits/sec
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   324 MBytes  2.72 Gbits/sec
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   337 MBytes  2.83 Gbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   340 MBytes  2.85 Gbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   337 MBytes  2.83 Gbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   340 MBytes  2.85 Gbits/sec
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   341 MBytes  2.86 Gbits/sec
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   342 MBytes  2.87 Gbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   342 MBytes  2.87 Gbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   342 MBytes  2.87 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  3.29 GBytes  2.83 Gbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  3.29 GBytes  2.83 Gbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

stephenw10

Ah, nice. Ok, I wonder what changed in 12.3 then. Hmm.

@m0nji said in After Upgrade inter (V)LAN communication is very slow (on Hyper-V).:

Sure that you want to have a iperf test when the test does not even leave the vm?

No sorry I meant swap the server and client iperf machines to see if opening the states the other way changes the direction that is slow. It seems very likely it will though.

Steve