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

    2.0-RELEASE: Performance oddity?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    23 Posts 5 Posters 5.3k 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.
    • chpalmerC Offline
      chpalmer
      last edited by

      What is your provided speed (up and down) by your ISP?

      http://cable-dsl.navasgroup.com/#Asymmetry

      Triggering snowflakes one by one..
      Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B Offline
        bubble1975
        last edited by

        The outbound and inbound speed is 10Gb/s (full duplex synchronous) via CENIC in California.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • B Offline
          bubble1975
          last edited by

          @bubble1975:

          Hmm, I don't think I have the NIC in promiscuous mode, at least I didn't do it on purpose.  That's mostly used when doing packet tracing on the NIC right?  I haven't been doing any of that.

          Well, after consulting with a very knowledgeable friend of mine, it appears I do have the WAN interface in promiscuous mode, but it appears that it is that way because of pfsync/pflog because I'm using virtual floating IPs via CARP or something.  Perhaps the pfSense devs know more on that.  But I don't know if that is the root of the problem?  Maybe…  But I need CARP and virtual IPs so I hope it isn't the problem...  ;)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P Offline
            podilarius
            last edited by

            Well, it is generally a bad idea to put that on WAN or LAN. It is better to have that on a dedicated NIC. As a test, disable pfsync. Promiscuous is not enabled by CARP VIPs only.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • B Offline
              bubble1975
              last edited by

              Hmm..  I do have a dedicated NIC for pfSync/CARP already?  And it's not the WAN one.  ;)  I'm just using RFC1918 space for the dedicated CARP interface.  I attached 2 screenshots showing my CARP config.  It should be noted that I'm syncing everything available however.

              But maybe I did something incorrectly there, let me know if so!

              CARP1.png
              CARP1.png_thumb
              CARP2.png
              CARP2.png_thumb

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • P Offline
                podilarius
                last edited by

                Is CARP a vLAN on on the WAN or LAN interface?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • B Offline
                  bubble1975
                  last edited by

                  No, I'm not using VLANs in this model.  The CARP interface uses a dedicated CAT5e cable connected in a crossover fashion from one physical interface of the "left" firewall to one physical interface on the "right" firewall, on a uniquely defined network that does not overlap any other nearby network.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M Offline
                    Metu69salemi
                    last edited by

                    @bubble1975:

                    Hmm..  I do have a dedicated NIC for pfSync/CARP already?  And it's not the WAN one.  ;)  I'm just using RFC1918 space for the dedicated CARP interface.  I attached 2 screenshots showing my CARP config.  It should be noted that I'm syncing everything available however.

                    But maybe I did something incorrectly there, let me know if so!

                    CARP DOC says that it needs public ip to function

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • P Offline
                      podilarius
                      last edited by

                      It needs 3 Internet IPs
                      1 for Physical Connection on Master
                      1 for Physical Connection on Backup
                      1 that is shared between the 2 (CARP Interface)

                      It also needs 3 IPs per LAN interface for the same purposes.

                      It is highly recommended that you have dedicated NICs for pfsync and settings sync. This interface does not need internet route-able addresses. It is only to sync settings and and states.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • B Offline
                        bubble1975
                        last edited by

                        My summary of interfaces are as follows:

                        firewall #1:
                            WAN - public IP 199.22.33.4/24
                            LAN - private IP 172.16.0.2/16
                            CARP - private IP 192.168.100.1/24 (connected directly to CARP interface on firewall #2, dedicated)

                        firewall #2:
                            WAN - public IP  199.22.33.5/24
                            LAN - private IP 172.16.0.3/16
                            CARP - private IP 192.168.100.2/24 (connected directly to CARP interface on firewall #1, dedicated)

                        Again, the CARP cable is a dedicated crossover cable at 1Gb/s ethernet.  It is on a network that does not overlap with either the WAN or LAN networks.  I am telling CARP/pfSync to use the dedicated CARP interface only.

                        One of the things CARP is doing is managing the virtual public IPs on the WAN interfaces.  Such that if firewall #1 dies, firewall #2 would bring over the virtual IPs (on the WAN interface).  Is that what is causing my WAN interfaces to be operating in promiscuous mode?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B Offline
                          bubble1975
                          last edited by

                          Another thing that is weird is that while I can see 2Gb/s on the live bandwidth graph, the RRD graphs don't show anything that high (maybe 20Mb/s or something).  Is it possible the RRD graphs have upper limits and my traffic is above those limits, and therefore being ignored?

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