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

    CPU loaded at 100% and hangs pfsense

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Off-Topic & Non-Support Discussion
    33 Posts 4 Posters 11.5k 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.
    • C
      cmb
      last edited by

      I don't think you have a problem, other than still having poor quality NIC hardware that induces significantly more CPU load than good quality NICs would. It's working fine as is, the fact it's using 30% CPU is irrelevant, you're maxing out your Internet connection without coming close to maxing out your hardware.

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

        I have never used L2TP from a pfSense box. I have no idea how much overhead that might represent or which process might show that in top. I have to assume it uses some cpu cycles though which might explain why your box looks more heavily loaded than I would have expected. Chris?

        In the top output I assume you are maxing out your 80Mb WAN connection? And using the wifi interface (ath0)?

        Steve

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • D
          Dealaxer
          last edited by

          cmb, A good network card is expensive, from 100$. Say something from the budget, please, but not less effective?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            Dealaxer
            last edited by

            stephenw10, At the peak of WAN traffic can reach 90-100 Mbit / s.
            And yes, I use a WiFi network for mobile devices and netbooks.

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

              But were you using the wifi interface at the same time as maxing out your WAN and what bandwidth was ath0 seeing when you ran 'top' above?
              80Mbps over wifi is going to more cpu cycles than 80Mbps via ethernet if only because of the encryption. I'm just trying to determine exactly what the conditions were so that I might run a comparable test.

              Do you know exactly what CPU you used?

              Steve

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • jimpJ
                jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                last edited by

                …plus you'd never see more than 45Mbps over wifi anyhow.

                Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                Do not Chat/PM for help!

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

                  For the sake of getting some comparable figures up, here is the output of top -SH from my home box which is, as I previously mentioned, a 1.8 P4-M underclocked to 1.2GHz. It's quite low end.  ;)

                  Here there is nothing much happening, no thoughput to speak of.

                  
last pid: 57933;  load averages:  0.63,  0.79,  0.44                                                up 155+21:01:22 12:28:57
109 processes: 4 running, 90 sleeping, 15 waiting
CPU:  0.4% user,  0.0% nice,  0.0% system,  0.4% interrupt, 99.3% idle
Mem: 72M Active, 51M Inact, 62M Wired, 204K Cache, 59M Buf, 300M Free
Swap:

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU COMMAND
   10 root     171 ki31     0K     8K RUN    3610.3 94.97% idle
   11 root     -32    -     0K   128K WAIT   462:52  0.00% {swi4: clock}
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K RUN    237:24  0.00% {irq18: em0 ath0+}
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT    90:45  0.00% {irq17: fxp2 fxp6}
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       31:11  0.00% {em1 taskq}
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       31:01  0.00% {ath0 taskq}
   13 root     -16    -     0K     8K -       30:51  0.00% yarrow
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       28:33  0.00% {em0 taskq}
   11 root     -44    -     0K   128K WAIT    27:13  0.00% {swi1: netisr 0}
47006 root      76   20  3656K  1600K wait    21:20  0.00% sh
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       20:23  0.00% {em2 taskq}
 6810 nobody    74  r30  3368K  1484K RUN     14:37  0.00% LCDd
   35 root      -8    -     0K     8K mdwait  13:50  0.00% md1
   20 root      44    -     0K     8K syncer  11:39  0.00% syncer
    2 root      -8    -     0K     8K -       11:16  0.00% g_event
 5227 root      65   20 46428K 17508K nanslp  11:08  0.00% php
17355 root      44    0  7612K  5184K kqread  10:50  0.00% lighttpd
   12 root     -16    -     0K     8K sleep   10:35  0.00% ng_queue
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT     9:07  0.00% {irq19: fxp0 fxp4}
    4 root      -8    -     0K     8K -        8:26  0.00% g_down
   29 root      -8    -     0K     8K mdwait   7:15  0.00% md0
27610 root      44    0  8464K  4440K select   7:00  0.00% {mpd5}
47631 root      44    0  8984K  6272K bpf      4:10  0.00% tcpdump
44283 dhcpd     44    0  8436K  6552K select   4:02  0.00% dhcpd
    3 root      -8    -     0K     8K -        3:43  0.00% g_up
33556 root      44    0  3352K  1308K select   3:42  0.00% miniupnpd
 9595 root      64   20  3316K  1336K select   3:24  0.00% apinger
 1433 root      44    0  4948K  2456K select   2:48  0.00% syslogd
    7 root     -16    -     0K     8K pftm     2:38  0.00% pfpurge
    0 root     -16    0     0K    88K sched    2:36  0.00% {swapper}
   11 root     -64    -     0K   128K WAIT     2:27  0.00% {irq14: ata0}
32508 nobody    44    0  5556K  2824K select   1:28  0.00% dnsmasq
   21 root     -16    -     0K     8K sdflus   1:25  0.00% softdepflush
   14 root     -64    -     0K    96K -        1:11  0.00% {usbus2}
47955 root      44    0  3316K   892K piperd   1:10  0.00% logger
   18 root     -16    -     0K     8K psleep   1:05  0.00% bufdaemon

                  Here is the same situation, no throughput, but I have the webGUI dashboard open on another machine. You'll see it's quite a resource hog on a low end machine like this and it doesn't appear as a process only in the CPU: system figure.

                  
last pid: 52329;  load averages:  1.78,  0.74,  0.31                                                up 155+20:57:37 12:25:12
111 processes: 4 running, 91 sleeping, 16 waiting
CPU: 19.0% user,  0.4% nice, 38.4% system,  0.4% interrupt, 41.8% idle
Mem: 73M Active, 51M Inact, 62M Wired, 204K Cache, 59M Buf, 299M Free
Swap:

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU COMMAND
   10 root     171 ki31     0K     8K RUN    3610.3 32.96% idle
36179 root      76    0 43356K 18008K lockf    0:10  3.96% php
20371 root      76    0 43356K 17896K lockf    0:09  2.98% php
14491 root      76    0 43356K 16680K piperd   0:28  1.95% php
10354 root      76    0 43356K 15464K piperd   0:27  1.95% php
   11 root     -32    -     0K   128K WAIT   462:52  0.00% {swi4: clock}
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT   237:24  0.00% {irq18: em0 ath0+}
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT    90:45  0.00% {irq17: fxp2 fxp6}
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       31:11  0.00% {em1 taskq}
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       31:01  0.00% {ath0 taskq}
   13 root     -16    -     0K     8K -       30:51  0.00% yarrow
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       28:33  0.00% {em0 taskq}
   11 root     -44    -     0K   128K WAIT    27:13  0.00% {swi1: netisr 0}
47006 root      76   20  3656K  1600K wait    21:20  0.00% sh
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       20:23  0.00% {em2 taskq}
 6810 nobody    74  r30  3368K  1484K nanslp  14:37  0.00% LCDd
   35 root      -8    -     0K     8K mdwait  13:50  0.00% md1
   20 root      44    -     0K     8K syncer  11:39  0.00% syncer
    2 root      -8    -     0K     8K -       11:16  0.00% g_event
 5227 root      65   20 46428K 17508K nanslp  11:08  0.00% php
17355 root      44    0  7612K  5184K kqread  10:49  0.00% lighttpd
   12 root     -16    -     0K     8K sleep   10:35  0.00% ng_queue
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT     9:07  0.00% {irq19: fxp0 fxp4}
    4 root      -8    -     0K     8K -        8:26  0.00% g_down
   29 root      -8    -     0K     8K mdwait   7:15  0.00% md0
27610 root      44    0  8464K  4440K select   7:00  0.00% {mpd5}
47631 root      44    0  8984K  6272K bpf      4:10  0.00% tcpdump
44283 dhcpd     44    0  8436K  6552K select   4:02  0.00% dhcpd
    3 root      -8    -     0K     8K -        3:43  0.00% g_up
33556 root      44    0  3352K  1308K select   3:42  0.00% miniupnpd
 9595 root      64   20  3316K  1336K select   3:24  0.00% apinger
 1433 root      44    0  4948K  2456K select   2:48  0.00% syslogd
    7 root     -16    -     0K     8K pftm     2:38  0.00% pfpurge
    0 root     -16    0     0K    88K sched    2:36  0.00% {swapper}
   11 root     -64    -     0K   128K WAIT     2:27  0.00% {irq14: ata0}
32508 nobody    44    0  5556K  2824K select   1:28  0.00% dnsmasq

                  Here I am maxing out my two WAN connections at 20Mbps and 23Mbps (the best I can get at midday) but don't have the dashboard open. The actual figures dance around a bit but this looks like a good average. The interfaces used are fxp5 and fxp6 (the two WAN connections) and em1. Interestingly fxp5 doesn't appear so I assume it shares an IRQ. (Aside: could I improve matters by using a different fxp interface? Hmm)

                  
last pid: 17219;  load averages:  0.90,  0.63,  0.43                                                up 155+21:09:45 12:37:20
109 processes: 5 running, 89 sleeping, 15 waiting
CPU:  0.0% user,  0.4% nice, 17.6% system,  6.7% interrupt, 75.3% idle
Mem: 73M Active, 51M Inact, 62M Wired, 204K Cache, 59M Buf, 300M Free
Swap:

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU COMMAND
   10 root     171 ki31     0K     8K RUN    3610.4 69.97% idle
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT   237:42 10.99% {irq18: em0 ath0+}
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K RUN     91:01  6.98% {irq17: fxp2 fxp6}
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K RUN     31:25  6.98% {em1 taskq}
   12 root     -16    -     0K     8K sleep   10:38  0.98% ng_queue
   11 root     -32    -     0K   128K WAIT   462:53  0.00% {swi4: clock}
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       31:01  0.00% {ath0 taskq}
   13 root     -16    -     0K     8K -       30:52  0.00% yarrow
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       28:33  0.00% {em0 taskq}
   11 root     -44    -     0K   128K WAIT    27:13  0.00% {swi1: netisr 0}
47006 root      76   20  3656K  1600K wait    21:21  0.00% sh
    0 root     -68    0     0K    88K -       20:24  0.00% {em2 taskq}
 6810 nobody    74  r30  3368K  1484K RUN     14:38  0.00% LCDd
   35 root      -8    -     0K     8K mdwait  13:50  0.00% md1
   20 root      44    -     0K     8K syncer  11:39  0.00% syncer
    2 root      -8    -     0K     8K -       11:16  0.00% g_event
 5227 root      65   20 46428K 17508K nanslp  11:09  0.00% php
17355 root      44    0  7612K  5184K kqread  10:50  0.00% lighttpd
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT     9:07  0.00% {irq19: fxp0 fxp4}
    4 root      -8    -     0K     8K -        8:26  0.00% g_down
   29 root      -8    -     0K     8K mdwait   7:15  0.00% md0
27610 root      44    0  8464K  4440K select   7:00  0.00% {mpd5}
47631 root      44    0  8984K  6272K bpf      4:10  0.00% tcpdump
44283 dhcpd     44    0  8436K  6552K select   4:02  0.00% dhcpd
    3 root      -8    -     0K     8K -        3:43  0.00% g_up
33556 root      44    0  3352K  1308K select   3:42  0.00% miniupnpd
 9595 root      64   20  3316K  1336K select   3:24  0.00% apinger
 1433 root      44    0  4948K  2456K select   2:48  0.00% syslogd
    7 root     -16    -     0K     8K pftm     2:38  0.00% pfpurge
    0 root     -16    0     0K    88K sched    2:36  0.00% {swapper}
   11 root     -64    -     0K   128K WAIT     2:27  0.00% {irq14: ata0}
32508 nobody    44    0  5556K  2824K select   1:28  0.00% dnsmasq
   21 root     -16    -     0K     8K sdflus   1:25  0.00% softdepflush
   14 root     -64    -     0K    96K -        1:11  0.00% {usbus2}
47955 root      44    0  3316K   892K piperd   1:10  0.00% logger
   18 root     -16    -     0K     8K psleep   1:05  0.00% bufdaemon

                  Since my ath0 interface is 54Mbps theoretical max. I probably couldn't max my WAN interfaces through it so I haven't tried. Edit: like Jim just said!

                  Steve

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • D
                    Dealaxer
                    last edited by

                    stephenw10
                    WiFi network does not load at all for me.
                    CPU Intel Pentium 4 3 GHz

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

                      You haven't been able to get ath0 working?

                      There are a number of different cpus that could be 'Pentium 4 3GHz'. Any of them should be plenty powerful enough.

                      Steve

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D
                        Dealaxer
                        last edited by

                        stephenw10, ath0 works well, I would say even with no problems.
                        The processor is really powerful, but it is strange why the peak load is loaded to 85%. Maybe this is weird or is this normal?

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

                          Maybe if you try to replicate the test conditions I used and produced figures we can compare. Your throughput is going to be higher but your cpu is substantially more powerful.
                          Did you try comparing with the webgui dashboard open and closed? When I first realised that I was quite surprised at the cpu load.

                          I don't know what the exact conditions were when you took your 'top' screenshot earlier but it looks like ath0 and swi5 are using a large number of cpu cycles, perhaps not an unreasonable amount for 100Mbps. However you could not get that bandwidth through an ath0 interface as Jim said.
                          You also have ng_queue using quite a bit. You have two, presumably because your cpu supports hyper-threading and hence appears as two cpus, but both are far higher than mine.

                          Are you doing QoS or any sort of traffic shaping?

                          Steve

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • D
                            Dealaxer
                            last edited by

                            Yes, I tried WebGUI, and indeed, when the cover is closed on the CPU load is less than when open.
                            WiFi there is little used, and the load is too small. With him there is no such problem.
                            No, I do not use QoS and Traffic Shaper.

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