Speed Limited to about 28 Mbps?

stephenw10 · Dec 27, 2012, 11:58 PM

I thought that too but it appears that Speedtest is capable of summing multiple simultaneous downloads. It is able to use both my connections in a round robin load balanced config.
As you say the fact that using far higher specced machine doesn't seem to help matters seems to point at an interface mismatch. Otherwise I might have called into question the capability of a P2 350 to keep up. Is this a new setup?

Have you tried something simple like a different cable to the modem?

Steve

hackin8 · Dec 28, 2012, 12:55 AM

So far haven't found any difference changing out NICs - but maybe found one issue?

With apologies - I am totally out of my depth with the next question:

On checking BIOS I see all three network cards are sharing IRQ11 - together with VGA card. Two NICs are PCI - third one is "built in" - so prob PCI as well.

Verified through BSD, vmstat -i gives

interrupt total rate
irq0: clk 12101263 998
irq1: atkbd0 6 0
irq6: fdc0 13 0
irq7: ppc0 1 0
irq8: rtc 1548825 127
irq11: fxp0 re0 rl+ 1018163 84
irq14: ata0 27969 2
Total 14696240 1213

Remembering its an old BIOS (no pnp):

Does this matter? Could this slow down throughput between LAN/WAN?
Should I change two PCI NICS to IRQ9 and 10 in BIOS?
If I do - do I need to reset / reconfig BSD / pfs?

Thanks :)

cmb · Dec 28, 2012, 5:45 AM

Having multiple NICs on the same IRQ has caused performance issues for others in the past in some cases. If you can get the BIOS to assign them differently, you should be good. No changes needed other than the BIOS, what it's doing will be automatically picked up.

Guest · Dec 28, 2012, 6:05 AM

Have you tried to run the 'iperf' package, as a server and use a PC as a client?

On my atom system, I can see between 250 to 350 Mbps on the LAN.

stephenw10 · Dec 28, 2012, 11:07 AM

You could free up some IRQs by disabling stuff in the bios. I notice you have the floppy disk controller and parallel port controller using IRQs but not doing anything.

Steve

hackin8 · Dec 28, 2012, 4:06 PM

Changed interrupts (didn't need to disable anything - used 9 and 10 that were already free). Didn't make any difference to speed but will have to wait and see whether it stops the (very occasional) hardware failure I asked about in another thread. Interestingly - now the LAN interface is completely clean - where before it was showing a few collisions.

Still no success with speed - despite trying different network cards. So ATM my belief is that it may still relate to inability to set maximum MTU - although it still seems surprising it has so much effect.

Am planning to try iperf - to see whether the pfs setup I have is at least capable of higher speeds. Will take a little while to setup and test - will report back later.

Thanks again

hackin8 · Dec 29, 2012, 4:21 PM

Managed to run iperf, results as follows:

Direct LAN PC1-PC2 (No pfs) 94Mbps - as expected on 10/100 NICS
PC1-pfs-PC2 50 Mbps - very consistent +/- 0.5Mbps (Using PC2 effectively as WAN)

Then using speedtest.net (Java and file DL)

PC1-PPPoE 77Mbps
PC1-pfs-PPPoE 24-28 Mbps

So - pfs is certainly capable of higher speeds - ran iperf continuously for 10 mins at 50Mbps and no sign of overloading / dropped packets etc

Seems to me that problem must relate to PPPoE implementation and/or MTU? pfs and/or BSD?

I am now out of ideas - will have to live with 28 Mbps unless any further suggestions / ideas :)

stephenw10 · Dec 29, 2012, 9:54 PM

Check the WAN NIC is set to auto negotiate the media type and that it is negotiating correctly. I would guess you have 100Mb half duplex connection perhaps.

Steve

hackin8 · Dec 29, 2012, 10:06 PM

Have double checked - It is set to auto - currently running at 100 full duplex.

hackin8 · Jan 2, 2013, 11:51 PM

Final (?) request.

Based upon testing so far it seems the only thing left is the MTU. I gather (from other threads) that the MTU for a PPPoE link is fixed at 1492 - even if you change it in pfs it will stay at 1492. Ideally this should be at 1500 for the BT fttc connection - or at least that is what the direct PC-PPPoE connection uses and gets 77Mbps.

Is there anyway to force the issue through (manually) changing MTU settings in BSD / pfs? This would seem to be the only possible way to increase my speed to closer to the actual limit?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

stephenw10 · Jan 3, 2013, 12:50 AM

I don't believe it has anything to do with mtu. I'm using the default pfsense pppoe settings and have no problem getting full speed from my fttc connection.
Are you sure it was no better using faster hardware?

Steve

hackin8 · Jan 3, 2013, 1:15 AM

I am positive that faster hardware made no difference - still seemed to limit at the same speed. Also I have managed to get twice the speed through this setup using the same NIC's etc - but connecting to a PC instead of via PPPoE

I have settled on MTU simply because I can't think of anything else to try!! What VDSL modem do you use for the fttc - maybe I could try changing it? (Although I have tried two different models from BT)

Again - suggestions welcome.

wallabybob · Jan 3, 2013, 1:28 AM

@hackin8:

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

On Status -> Interfaces do any of the interfaces show non-zero error counts?
Do the error counts change after running a speedtest?

What is the output of pfSense shell command```
ifconfig -i ; netstat -s -p ip ; netstat -s -p tcp


If you have a Linux or Unix system downstream of pfSense on which you can run the speed test please post the output of shell command```
ifconfig -i ; netstat -s -p ip ; netstat -s -p tcp
```executed on that system.

Perhaps your pfSense is running out of puff and occasionally dropping packets forcing a TCP timeout and consequent loss of throughput.

hackin8 · Feb 18, 2013, 5:44 PM

Just double checked. When I connect PC directly to VDSL modem using PPPoE I get high speed transfer (76/19) - but on checking the mtu is 1480 (netsh interface ipv4 show subinterfaces) compared to the "normal" WIN7 LAN connection setting of 1500.

Checking pfS (route get domain) shows mtu of 1492. Even if I change it in interface advance settings - it stays at 1492. Is there anyway to change it to 1480 to see if this makes any difference?

Thanks

stephenw10 · Feb 19, 2013, 1:02 AM

Have you upgraded to 2.0.2? I see there were some MTU fixes that update.

Steve

Klaws · Feb 19, 2013, 8:45 AM

@wallabybob:

Perhaps your pfSense is running out of puff and occasionally dropping packets forcing a TCP timeout and consequent loss of throughput.

In that case, the traffic graph should show the "ramp pattern" - thoughput steadily increasing, then abruptly dopping down, then ramping up again…and so on.

Does the traffic graph show a (sort of) flat 28Mbps line or does it show much variance?

hackin8 · Feb 19, 2013, 8:57 AM

Thanks for the suggestion - I am still on 2.0.1 - have been waiting for 2.0.3 to be finalised before updating.

As I am running a live production server would be reluctant to upgrade unless a real chance of resolving problem.

Does anyone have any confirmation that changng PPPoE MTU has been "fixed" in 2.0.2?

stephenw10 · Feb 19, 2013, 1:17 PM

I was looking at the 2.0.2 release notes.

@http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.0.2_New_Features_and_Changes:

Properly obey MTU set on Interface page for PPP type WANs.

Steve

hackin8 · Feb 19, 2013, 8:05 PM

Klaws - attached image is from speedtest.net - peaking at about 29Mbps. It did (on this run) tail off a little at the end - but this doesn't usually happen. It is not flat-lining (indiocating a limiter / throttling) but neither is it saw-tooth (running out of resources etc). Although the PC I am running pfS on is quite limited - I did previously try with a much more powerful PC - but the results were identical.

Pattern is pretty much the same each time, although I find with firefox I get about 26-28 and with IE9 I get 30-32 when connected through pfS. when using same PC with PPPoE direct to vdsl modem I get 75-77 and 68-72 respectively.

stephenw10 - thanks for that, I think I will try upgrading to 2.0.3 but first I thought I would try direct PPPoE and changing MTU from 1480 to 1492 to see if that makes any difference.

I am still not really convinced that MTU is the problem - but it is the only thing I can think that might make a difference.

Will report back on trials - unless any other suggestions in the meantime….

stephenw10 · Feb 19, 2013, 10:51 PM

I have to doubt it's an mtu issue too. As I said my own fttc connection works fine with the default settings. I'm using the BT supplied Huawei HG612.

Steve