Intel X550-T2

stephenw10

Can we see the ifconfig output?

There are numerous options but those pfSense can set directly are in Sys > Adv > Networking.

When you test what throughput does pfSense show on the traffic graphs? Is it actually above 1G?

You might also consider an igc based card instead.

Steve

kennypollock

@stephenw10 What card would you recommend?
AT&T has 5000mbps service available to me so I can see myself upgrading to that in the next year but right now 2500 is what I pay for. My business does a lot of 300 GB + downloads and if I can get this working it will save us a lot of time :)

The traffic graph showed just a hair over 1G

Here is my ifconfig:

re0: flags=8802<BROADCAST,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
	options=8209b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_MAGIC,LINKSTATE>
	ether f8:b1:56:e3:35:1f
	media: Ethernet autoselect (none)
	status: no carrier
	nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
ix0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
	options=e138bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_UCAST,WOL_MCAST,WOL_MAGIC,VLAN_HWFILTER,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
	ether a0:36:9f:20:a5:1c
	inet6 fe80::a236:9fff:fe20:a51c%ix0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
	inet6 2600:1700:1ec2:8ff0:a236:9fff:fe20:a51c prefixlen 64 autoconf
	inet6 2600:1700:1ec2:8ff0::49 prefixlen 128
	inet 99.148.24.85 netmask 0xfffffff8 broadcast 99.148.24.87
	media: Ethernet autoselect (Unknown <rxpause,txpause>)
	status: active
	nd6 options=23<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
ix1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
	options=e138bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_UCAST,WOL_MCAST,WOL_MAGIC,VLAN_HWFILTER,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
	ether a0:36:9f:20:a5:1e
	inet6 fe80::a236:9fff:fe20:a51e%ix1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
	inet6 fe80::1:1%ix1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
	inet6 2600:1700:1ec2:8fff:a236:9fff:fe20:a51e prefixlen 64
	inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
	media: Ethernet autoselect (Unknown)
	status: active
	nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
enc0: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 1536
	groups: enc
	nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 16384
	options=680003<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,LINKSTATE,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
	inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
	inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
	inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
	groups: lo
	nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
pflog0: flags=100<PROMISC> metric 0 mtu 33160
	groups: pflog
pfsync0: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 1500
	groups: pfsync

stephenw10

Does the other end of the cable show it linked at 2.5G?

Any errors on those interfaces shown in: netstat -i ?

Steve

kennypollock

@stephenw10
2.5 Gbps connected on my computer hooked into LAN

Name    Mtu Network       Address              Ipkts Ierrs Idrop    Opkts Oerrs  Coll
re0*   1500 <Link#1>      f8:b1:56:e3:35:1f        0     0     0        0     0     0
ix0    1500 <Link#2>      a0:36:9f:20:a5:1c  3650480     9     0  4173229     0     0
ix0       - fe80::%ix0/64 fe80::a236:9fff:f        0     -     -        0     -     -
ix0       - 99.148.24.80/ pfSense.attlocal.     4692     -     -      421     -     -
ix1    1500 <Link#3>      a0:36:9f:20:a5:1e  4032292  8378     0  3305846     0     0
ix1       - fe80::%ix1/64 fe80::a236:9fff:f        0     -     -        0     -     -
ix1       - 192.168.1.0/2 pfSense                616     -     -     1009     -     -
ix1       - fe80::%ix1/64 fe80::1:1%ix1            0     -     -        0     -     -
enc0*  1536 <Link#4>      enc0                     0     0     0        0     0     0
lo0   16384 <Link#5>      lo0                      0     0     0        0     0     0
lo0       - localhost     localhost                0     -     -        0     -     -
lo0       - fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0              0     -     -        0     -     -
lo0       - your-net      localhost                0     -     -        0     -     -
pflog 33160 <Link#6>      pflog0                   0     0     0     7276     0     0
pfsyn  1500 <Link#7>      pfsync0                  0     0     0        0     0     0

stephenw10

Hmm, well that's not a huge number but I's rather not see any input errors in ix1 there.
Do they increase if you run a test?

kennypollock

@stephenw10 so i did a reboot to get to 0 errors. then i checked, none. did a speed test. download, no errors still. upload portion of the speedtest.net started the errors.

Name    Mtu Network       Address              Ipkts Ierrs Idrop    Opkts Oerrs  Coll
re0*   1500 <Link#1>      f8:b1:56:e3:35:1f        0     0     0        0     0     0
ix0    1500 <Link#2>      a0:36:9f:20:a5:1c  1550776     0     0  2024984     0     0
ix0       - fe80::%ix0/64 fe80::a236:9fff:f        0     -     -        2     -     -
ix0       - 99.148.24.80/ pfSense.attlocal.     4368     -     -      416     -     -
ix1    1500 <Link#3>      a0:36:9f:20:a5:1e  2024860  4233     0  1546331     0     0
ix1       - fe80::%ix1/64 fe80::a236:9fff:f        0     -     -        0     -     -
ix1       - 192.168.1.0/2 pfSense                638     -     -      620     -     -
ix1       - fe80::%ix1/64 fe80::1:1%ix1            0     -     -        0     -     -
enc0*  1536 <Link#4>      enc0                     0     0     0        0     0     0
lo0   16384 <Link#5>      lo0                      0     0     0        0     0     0
lo0       - localhost     localhost                0     -     -        0     -     -
lo0       - fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0              0     -     -        0     -     -
lo0       - your-net      localhost                0     -     -        0     -     -
pflog 33160 <Link#6>      pflog0                   0     0     0      205     0     0
pfsyn  1500 <Link#7>      pfsync0                  0     0     0        0     0     0

It's just so discouraging that taking the cable from AT&T modem to my PC direct is 2500
same cable to pfSense WAN with new cable from LAN to same PC and I'm at 990/1050 almost every test.

Am I dreaming that I will see anywhere near the same 2500 I get direct from modem with pfSense and my current setup? What am I doing wrong?

(Thank you for the responses BTW, I greatly appreciate you)

stephenw10

I've never tried to use an X550 NIC at 2.5G myself so it's somewhat guesswork! I have seen 2.5G many times with igc NICs.

Try swapping the NIC assignment for WAN and LAN and see if the errors follow ix1.

What is the USB NIC you are testing with?

You could try using the speedtest-cli client from pfSense directly. That way you are only testing one NIC. You probably won't see the best results doing that (it's not great at higher speeds) but if it shows any increase that will be a clue.

Steve

kennypollock

@stephenw10 I can try the speedtest-cli package later tonight

I am using a "Plugable 2.5G USB C and USB to Ethernet Adapter, 2-in-1 Adapter Compatible with USB C/Thunderbolt 3 or USB 3.0, USB-C to RJ45 2.5 Gigabit LAN Compatible with Mac and Windows" on my Windows client machine

It gets 2500 on speedtest.net if I take the pfSense box out of the way and do direct to modem.

I don't have a problem returning the X550-T2 if that's my problem here but I thought it was a 10G capable card and getting 2.5G in and out of it wouldn't be a problem....

stephenw10

@kennypollock said in Intel X550-T2:

990/1050

Seeing that is not sufficiently above 940 to prove it's actually linked at 2.5G IMO. Testing against speedtest.net can show averaging errors.

Another test you could do is to run iperf3 on pfSense directly and test against it from th LAN side client. That should be obviously above 1G if it's really linked at 2.5G.

Steve

kennypollock

@stephenw10 Guess it was a driver issue with FreeBSD.

Switched to Untangle and it's working flawlessly, so I guess I will just use that instead of pfSense. Thank you for your help :)

A Former User

@kennypollock

I am using a "Plugable 2.5G USB C and USB to
Ethernet Adapter, 2-in-1 Adapter Compatible with
USB C/Thunderbolt 3 or USB 3.0, USB-C to RJ45 2.5
Gigabit LAN Compatible with Mac and Windows" on my
Windows client machine
It was pending on the FreeBSD support for the USB Adapter, more then once seen here they are often sorted with FreeBSD incompatible chips.