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

    Traffic shapping kills the ping

    Traffic Shaping
    3
    9
    5.0k
    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.
    • R
      rexster
      last edited by

      pfsense rc1. (cvs_sync yesterday).
      after running the traffic shapper wizard,
      my ping time to the pfsense goes very high

      when i remove the traffic shapper, the ping gets down to <1ms immediately.

      even when i give icmp higher priority, it still the same.

      the weird thing is, even when i gets lots of time out, i (sometimes) still able to browse the internet.
      and when i get lots of time out, resetting the states give back good pings.

      any ideas?
      tia
      rex

      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=1393ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=1442ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=1068ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=1464ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=1749ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=2327ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=2334ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3003ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3006ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3165ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3693ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=2988ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3243ms TTL=64
      Request timed out.
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3150ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3095ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time=3194ms TTL=64
      Request timed out.
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
      Reply from 192.168.18.18: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

      http://www.GoBlogLah.com

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        sullrich
        last edited by

        Thats a new one on me.  Sounds like something hardware related.

        When I enable the traffic shaper I can saturate 90% of by outbound traffic and maintain a 30ms ping.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R
          rexster
          last edited by

          cpu p3/500mhz, load around 5%
          memory 128mb, usage about 35%
          hdd 4gig
          4 nic, all 3com 509tx

          i just change the nic. before that, i use at2500 with rtl8139c chipset.
          maybe that?

          rgds,
          rex

          http://www.GoBlogLah.com

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            sullrich
            last edited by

            Yes.

            How about a quote from the realtek driver page.  I've sent it to the mailing list in the past:

            taken from /usr/src/sys/pci/if_rl.c

            /*

            • The RealTek 8139 PCI NIC redefines the meaning of 'low end.' This is
            • probably the worst PCI ethernet controller ever made, with the possible
            • exception of the FEAST chip made by SMC. The 8139 supports bus-master
            • DMA, but it has a terrible interface that nullifies any performance
            • gains that bus-master DMA usually offers.
            • For transmission, the chip offers a series of four TX descriptor
            • registers. Each transmit frame must be in a contiguous buffer, aligned
            • on a longword (32-bit) boundary. This means we almost always have to
            • do mbuf copies in order to transmit a frame, except in the unlikely
            • case where a) the packet fits into a single mbuf, and b) the packet
            • is 32-bit aligned within the mbuf's data area. The presence of only
            • four descriptor registers means that we can never have more than four
            • packets queued for transmission at any one time.
            • Reception is not much better. The driver has to allocate a single large
            • buffer area (up to 64K in size) into which the chip will DMA received
            • frames. Because we don't know where within this region received packets
            • will begin or end, we have no choice but to copy data from the buffer
            • area into mbufs in order to pass the packets up to the higher protocol
            • levels.
            • It's impossible given this rotten design to really achieve decent
            • performance at 100Mbps, unless you happen to have a 400Mhz PII or
            • some equally overmuscled CPU to drive it.
            • On the bright side, the 8139 does have a built-in PHY, although
            • rather than using an MDIO serial interface like most other NICs, the
            • PHY registers are directly accessible through the 8139's register
            • space. The 8139 supports autonegotiation, as well as a 64-bit multicast
            • filter.
            • The 8129 chip is an older version of the 8139 that uses an external PHY
            • chip. The 8129 has a serial MDIO interface for accessing the MII where
            • the 8139 lets you directly access the on-board PHY registers. We need
            • to select which interface to use depending on the chip type.
              */
            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • R
              rexster
              last edited by

              i use realtek before i change the nic.
              now, after i change it, it's 3com 509tx.

              so, any recommendation on good nic i should use?

              tia
              rex

              http://www.GoBlogLah.com

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • S
                sullrich
                last edited by

                I generally try to stick with intel or 3com chipsets, but as anything YMMV.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • JeGrJ
                  JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator
                  last edited by

                  Heard some comments from a kernel hacker I know, that (older) 3com aren't the top, too. Seems they also had some problems in the 3c905-series. 905c looks good to me, on older chipsets there was a bit of lazyness here and there, but only had that on openbsd (or netbsd). But I can fully agree to the intel nics, especially the server cards (small boards they are nowadays). They keep running smoothly without any problems so far.

                  Greets
                  Grey

                  Don't forget to upvote 👍 those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

                  If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • R
                    rexster
                    last edited by

                    changed nic to 3com 905c-tx-m

                    seems not much change.

                    however, downgrade to beta3 (clean install) seems to fix my problem??

                    yet another of (my) weird experiences…

                    rgds,
                    rex

                    http://www.GoBlogLah.com

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      sullrich
                      last edited by

                      Beta 4 has major issues.  If you are not cvs_sync.sh releng_1 your copy then it's broken on beta4.

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