Slow upload speeds on HP Z2 G9 PFSense Box
-
If you just tried to install it at the CLI without visiting the webgui first you probably need to run:
pfSense-repoc -Nfirst. Then retry. -
@stephenw10 Looks like when I swapped NICs, I lost my registration for some reason.
What do I need to do in order to get a new token? It's not on my PDF. Order SO25-338254 - Sent you my NDI via Chat.
-
I've got the numbers from the i5-14500 /w the X520, flow control off.
With - P -R
# iperf3 -c speedtest.dal13.us.leaseweb.net -p 5201-5210 -P 120 -R [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [SUM] 0.00-10.01 sec 5.20 GBytes 4.46 Gbits/sec 10655 sender [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.07 GBytes 4.35 Gbits/sec receiverWith -P
# iperf3 -c speedtest.dal13.us.leaseweb.net -p 5201-5210 -P 120 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [SUM] 0.00-10.01 sec 1.61 GBytes 1.38 Gbits/sec 27815 sender [SUM] 0.00-10.02 sec 1.60 GBytes 1.37 Gbits/sec receiverNote that with Speed Test, I initially see speeds of 1.6-1.7Gbit that quickly slow down to 400-650Mbits. This does not happen with the 6100.
-
Hmm, so that looks like the same result as a client behind the 6100.
Does a client behind the i5 still see a much lower limit on iperf? Like ~400Mbps?
If so that implies a LAN side issue with traffic going into pfSense.
-
@stephenw10 Yes, a client behind the i5 sees a much lower limit. Though I'm not sure where to go with this from here. Same cables, same switch between both units. Same config even, since it was a restore.
-
Hmm, well that seems to confirm some issue on the LAN side then.
Still no input errors on the LAN interface?
Can you try connecting a client to the LAN directly to rule out some low level issue between the LAN and switch?
-
@stephenw10 I've tried that. Still getting the same speeds.
-
So to be clear the client behind the i5 sees ~400Mbps both for iperf and speedtest.net? Whether or not via the switch. And no errors are shown on the NIC.
Hmm. What about an iperf test between the client and pfSense directly? Does that also get throttled for traffic going into the LAN NIC?
-
@Bear To put a finer point on it, there is no "real" LAN side besides physical, since I'm running a filtered bridge. The LAN side is a filtered port on the same NIC that connects to a Netgear L3 multigig switch.
-
Ah, yes I forgot about that. From a packets-in packets-out perspective it makes no difference. It still feels like the internal NIC causing the issue.
However I think it would be worth testing a more basic routing setup if you can just to be sure it still shows the same issue. Hard to see why the 6100 would behave any differently but the fact you're running a bridged setup is at least unusual.
-
I’ve already tried two completely different Intel NICs. The i7-14500 has more than enough power to run in filtering bridge mode since the 6100 is doing it as well using the same config.
I’ve gathered a bunch of data already - I can’t reconfigure the network as I’m running a /25 of public IPs with lots of firewall rules.
Is there a potential issue with the software and more recent Intel hardware here? Again, I’m running as plain and supported a piece of hardware as I can, save for it being a much later model Intel system.
-
You replaced the i5 with an i7? Or is that the client you're testing from? Not that it should matter.
Bridging has always been somewhat fragile in pfSense/FreeBSD and can create some unexpected traffic scenarios. It would be good to rule that out entirely if you can. But, yes, I agree that it seems unlikely here since the 6100 passes it OK.
-
@stephenw10 Sorry, it’s an i5-14500.
-
@stephenw10 said in Slow upload speeds on HP Z2 G9 PFSense Box:
You replaced the i5 with an i7? Or is that the client you're testing from? Not that it should matter.
Bridging has always been somewhat fragile in pfSense/FreeBSD and can create some unexpected traffic scenarios. It would be good to rule that out entirely if you can. But, yes, I agree that it seems unlikely here since the 6100 passes it OK.
Any other suggestions for diagnostics here? I'm just about at my wit's end - This is a relatively high end workstation with ECC RAM, and otherwise all standardized components.
-
Did you try an iperf test between an internal client and pfSense directly?
If it is some low level issue I'd expect to see the same issue there for the client sending. Though in that scenario it does cross the bridge differently.
You could disabling filtering entirely. If the issue remains that proves it's a driver/hardware issue rather than something in pf.
-
@stephenw10 I'll try running iperf3 in server mode later tonight/tomorrow and see what my Mac Studio client (my control) gets to it.
The other data I've got is, I've got 2 of these HP Z2 G9s as nodes with the exact same NIC running Proxmox VE (Spicy Debian) and I have none of these upload speed issues with either the command prompt or from within LXCs and VMs.
If I did attempt a reinstall, just to give it a clear slate, will my Netgate ID/registration remain the same?
-
Yes the NDI will remain unchanged. You could install 24.11 directly again.
-
@stephenw10 said in Slow upload speeds on HP Z2 G9 PFSense Box:
Yes the NDI will remain unchanged. You could install 24.11 directly again.
As a control, I ran iperf3 on the 6100 and used my Mac to see what I'd get.
# iperf3 -c (router IP) -P 120 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 2.48 GBytes 2.13 Gbits/sec sender [SUM] 0.00-10.02 sec 2.45 GBytes 2.10 Gbits/sec receiver# iperf3 -c (router IP) -P 120 -R [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [SUM] 0.00-10.07 sec 3.61 GBytes 3.08 Gbits/sec 29586 sender [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 3.48 GBytes 2.99 Gbits/sec receiverI'm getting better performance through the 6100 than I am hitting it directly.
-
Good, that's what I'd expect to see. At those speeds you're probably seeing iperf using 100% of one CPU core. iperf is deliberately single threaded. And pfSense is optimised for routing not serving.
As a side note using 120 streams is probably counter productive. You usually won't see any increase beyond the available number of NIC queues. So 8 for the ix NICs in the 6100.
On the i5 one CPU core is capable of far higher iperf values and the remaining cores are capable of pushing it.
-
Looks like you're correct. 6100:
# iperf3 -c (router IP) -P 8 [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 2.48 GBytes 2.13 Gbits/sec sender [SUM] 0.00-10.03 sec 2.47 GBytes 2.12 Gbits/sec receiver # iperf3 -c (router IP) -P 8 -R [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [SUM] 0.00-10.01 sec 3.68 GBytes 3.16 Gbits/sec 14 sender [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 3.68 GBytes 3.16 Gbits/sec receiverI'll try to get i5 numbers in the next day or so. Each core on that is more powerful than the entire Atom CPU, so I'd expect to see higher numbers, unless there's a LAN or bridging issue...hopefully this'll help give us that data.
