Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Abysmal Performance after pfSense hardware upgrade

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    69 Posts 4 Posters 15.1k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • 8
      8ayM @stephenw10
      last edited by

      @stephenw10

      I'm not running snort ATM, but I do have pfBlockerNG running

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • stephenw10S
        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
        last edited by

        Hmm, pfBlocker doesn't run continually against all traffic like that. Any load created by large lists just appears as firewall load in the task queues.

        It's almost as if the NICs are running in a different mode. 🤔

        8 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • 8
          8ayM @stephenw10
          last edited by 8ayM

          @stephenw10

          Let me know if there is anything you can think of me trying or something else you'd like to to check.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stephenw10S
            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
            last edited by

            The throughput you're seeing now is as expected though?

            8 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • 8
              8ayM @stephenw10
              last edited by

              @stephenw10

              It is. You just now have me curious what is causing the interrupts.

              I'm considering getting the 1u version of my new router. If I do, I'll preform a clean install and look to rebuild my system one brick at a time to see if I can figure out what is causing the GUI slowdown I've had since I moved to my last hardware. I can try to keep an eye on the interrupts as well.

              Here is the stats from Status -> Interfaces
              935a89b5-24f3-40d6-80f6-f9882b2acd0c-image.png

              I seem to be a little beyond the interrupt range you said shouldn't be "unusual".
              b23b86ef-1eba-42cd-8bd0-26af509aa221-image.png

              https://forum.netgate.com/topic/179674/netgate-6100-significant-interface-interrupt-rates/9

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Mmm, but no where near 10K! I agree though I find it odd that you see the interrupt loading in the top output and I do not on a similar C3K system. Like whilst passing 1Gbps iperf traffic on a 5100:

                last pid: 57718;  load averages:  0.55,  0.36,  0.34                                              up 0+06:27:17  22:57:28
                339 threads:   7 running, 288 sleeping, 44 waiting
                CPU 0:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice, 28.6% system,  0.0% interrupt, 71.4% idle
                CPU 1:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice, 23.1% system,  0.0% interrupt, 76.9% idle
                CPU 2:  0.4% user,  0.0% nice, 24.7% system,  0.0% interrupt, 74.9% idle
                CPU 3:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice, 34.1% system,  0.0% interrupt, 65.9% idle
                Mem: 45M Active, 258M Inact, 505M Wired, 3028M Free
                ARC: 127M Total, 28M MFU, 93M MRU, 416K Anon, 962K Header, 4535K Other
                     92M Compressed, 229M Uncompressed, 2.48:1 Ratio
                Swap: 1024M Total, 1024M Free
                
                  PID USERNAME    PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    C   TIME    WCPU COMMAND
                   11 root        187 ki31     0B    64K RUN      0 377:22  73.68% [idle{idle: cpu0}]
                   11 root        187 ki31     0B    64K RUN      2 376:55  73.23% [idle{idle: cpu2}]
                   11 root        187 ki31     0B    64K RUN      1 377:47  72.55% [idle{idle: cpu1}]
                   11 root        187 ki31     0B    64K CPU3     3 376:45  72.51% [idle{idle: cpu3}]
                    0 root        -60    -     0B  1648K -        0   0:06  19.51% [kernel{if_io_tqg_0}]
                    0 root        -60    -     0B  1648K -        3   0:05  18.78% [kernel{if_io_tqg_3}]
                    0 root        -60    -     0B  1648K CPU1     1   0:04  18.60% [kernel{if_io_tqg_1}]
                57718 root         34    0    19M  8644K CPU0     0   0:03  17.05% iperf3 -c 172.21.16.8 -P 3 -t 30{iperf3}
                57718 root         36    0    19M  8644K sbwait   3   0:04  16.93% iperf3 -c 172.21.16.8 -P 3 -t 30{iperf3}
                57718 root         40    0    19M  8644K sbwait   1   0:03  16.74% iperf3 -c 172.21.16.8 -P 3 -t 30{iperf3}
                    0 root        -60    -     0B  1648K -        1   0:36   0.14% [kernel{if_config_tqg_0}]
                78943 root         20    0    14M  4716K CPU2     2   0:00   0.12% top -HaSP
                    7 root        -16    -     0B    16K pftm     0   0:09   0.03% [pf purge]
                
                8 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • 8
                  8ayM @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10

                  What settings did you utilize for the iperf test?

                  I turned on the server on my pfSense box

                  Then connected from my Windows box with
                  iperf3.exe -c 192.168.1.1 -P 2

                  This way I get over 1Gbps

                  29ea1f0a-bdd8-48d2-aeeb-fac6c6646a1e-image.png

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    I ran the server on a Linux box on my network and then ran a client on pfSense:

                    [24.03-BETA][admin@5100-2.stevew.lan]/root: iperf3 -c 172.21.16.8 -P 3 -t 30
                    Connecting to host 172.21.16.8, port 5201
                    [  5] local 172.21.16.75 port 22757 connected to 172.21.16.8 port 5201
                    [  7] local 172.21.16.75 port 1280 connected to 172.21.16.8 port 5201
                    [  9] local 172.21.16.75 port 22575 connected to 172.21.16.8 port 5201
                    [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
                    [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec  39.2 MBytes   329 Mbits/sec    0    938 KBytes       
                    [  7]   0.00-1.00   sec  39.2 MBytes   329 Mbits/sec    0    939 KBytes       
                    [  9]   0.00-1.00   sec  39.2 MBytes   329 Mbits/sec    0    937 KBytes       
                    [SUM]   0.00-1.00   sec   118 MBytes   986 Mbits/sec    0 
                    

                    The 5100 ix NICs are 1G but the SoC is the same.

                    8 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • 8
                      8ayM @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10

                      I averaged about 1.9Gbps with the interrupts @ 24%-31%

                      with your settings

                      I'm guessingthere are gremlins in the config, from being carried forward over a decade, multiple hardware, and os upgrades

                      G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • G
                        Gblenn @8ayM
                        last edited by

                        Perhaps a long shot, but could it be that you have have some power saving settings for the CPU? Pegging it at a low frequency? I remember reading about that in relation to high interrupt under load.

                        8 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stephenw10S
                          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                          last edited by

                          Hmm, possible.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • 8
                            8ayM @Gblenn
                            last edited by

                            @Gblenn

                            I didn't see anything explicitly listed for power savings that was enabled.

                            8 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • 8
                              8ayM @8ayM
                              last edited by

                              Ordering the Rackmount version shortly and I'll test restoring one component at a time to see if the interrupts persist, or at what point they may increase.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.