Vmware vmxnet3 nic vs. e1000 vs. hardware-install - throughput performance
-
I have a few questions:
- Why run VLAN tagging with pfSense? Why not give leave the tagging up to ESX? This way pfSense passes everything untagged and ESX will tag it as it leaves. This method works fine for me, and prevents configuring the ESX for trunking.
- Any benefit from running multiple physical NICs on the vSwitch? I'm running three 1-Gb NICs using "Route based on IP hash" load balancing, and I'm wondering if there is a benefit to running VMXNET3 or E1000. The VM still has one adapter per network though, so it's up to the ESX server to load balance and is transparent to the pfSense VM.
i'm letting pfsense handle the vlan tag because i have more vlans than it's possible to assign physical adapters.
-
Yes but if you have DRS and failover switches(physical) you need the tag on PFsense, Vswitch and physical switch.
I dont think you can run untagged VLAN's and migrate VM's to other cluster nodes if you dont do it this way.
-
Yes but if you have DRS and failover switches(physical) you need the tag on PFsense, Vswitch and physical switch.
I dont think you can run untagged VLAN's and migrate VM's to other cluster nodes if you dont do it this way.
Sure you can, all the labels across the port groups just need to be the same. In reality, they don't even need to all be on the same switches, as long as the labels all match (for everyone's sanity, it's better if they're as close to exact mirrors as possible, though.)
The only limitation that you "can't vMotion / DRS with, as far as network is concerned, is an internal only network. If a VM is connected to a vSwitch that has no external physical NIC, it won't DRS it (it might let you manually vMotion it after a warning, I would have to test it with current versions.)
I had a whole bunch of these I inherited at an old job, remnants of an um-restricted Lab Manager install for a DEV environment. I just made each one their own VLAN and assigned them to port groups instead, that way they could vMotion till the cows came home and they didn't lose connection to each-other. For performance reasons, I did create affinity rules to keep them together, though (they were groups of web, SQL, DC's in their little isolated networks.)
-
I dont get that….
How would you seperate traffic on the Vswitch if no VLAN tagging is done by Pfsense but only in Vsphere?
How about the physical switch and vmotion across cluster nodes?
You got me really confused here, since I spent a lot of time getting it to work so it could migrate VM's across nodes and more than one physical switch.
-
I dont get that….
How would you seperate traffic on the Vswitch if no VLAN tagging is done by Pfsense but only in Vsphere?
How about the physical switch and vmotion across cluster nodes?
You got me really confused here, since I spent a lot of time getting it to work so it could migrate VM's across nodes and more than one physical switch.
On a single vSwitch you create port groups, these port groups have a VLAN tag assigned to them and become "Networks" you can select in the vNIC settings for your particular VM. Your VM will have as many vNIC's as you have port groups/networks that you need to connect pfSense to, one in each. So, you can run in to the same issue that miloman has, where you run out of "virtual PCI slots" for your vNIC's, but if you only have a few VLANs, it works fine.
I'm not saying it's a "better" way, just that it does work and can vMotion / DRS.
Edit: note, a vNIC is seen in pfSense as its physical NIC(s).
-
So, you can run in to the same issue that miloman has, where you run out of "virtual PCI slots" for your vNIC's, but if you only have a few VLANs, it works fine.
BTW, the limit of Virtual NICs you can give a VM in ESXi 4 and up is 10 individual vNICs (up from 4 in ESX/ESXi 3.5.)
-
Thats why you need tagging since pfsense is located in the "all" segment of the Vswitch and handles traffic to the individual VLAN's on the portgroups.
I only have 2 vNIC's in PFsense and they are VLAN's in one, and none on the other interface.
-
Thats why you need tagging since pfsense is located in the "all" segment of the Vswitch and handles traffic to the individual VLAN's on the portgroups.
I only have 2 vNIC's in PFsense and they are VLAN's in one, and none on the other interface.
I hope we're using the same terminology in the same places.
Anyone can set them either way and still have them vMotion-able as long as the labels your networks are connecting to and the underlying networks they're connecting to are the same. (In fact, they'll vMotion even if the underlying networks are different, as long as they're labeled the same, whether it works after the vMotion or not is a different story.)
Passing the VLANs through, rather than letting ESX(i) "sort" them in to individual vNICs is a matter of taste and comfort level (or, a matter of limitations if you have more than 8 or 9 networks to present to pfSense and start running out of vNIC "slots".)
-
Hello all,
I have been doing my own testing comparison between vmxnet3 and e1000 running on ESXi 5.1 build 914609. The pfsense VM is configured with a single CPU and 1GB of RAM running on a dual socket Xeon X5675 (3.07Ghz) machine. These tests were done with installed 64-bit pfsense 2.0.2.
I have a 10gige network so can test at speeds in excess of 1gige.
I had to apply the tuning suggestions at http://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/freebsd to achieve top speeds.
I had two main test scenarios:
Scenario 1: iperf between the pfsense VMs and a linux VM (e1000) running on the same ESXi box connected to the same port group. This test does not hit a physical network.
Scenario 2: iperf between the pfsense VM and an external linux machine connected via a 10gige switch and intel 10gige interface cards.For both of these scenarios I generated throughput with both e1000 and vmxnet3 three times and then took the highest value.
Scenario 1:
e1000: 2.42 Gbits/sec
vmxnet3: 17.8 Gbits/secScenario 2:
e1000: 2.8 Gbits/sec
vmxnet3: 8.87 Gbits/secSo you can see that at greater than 1gbps speeds that vmxnet3 makes a huge difference. With inter-VM traffic on the host running 7 times faster than e1000.
For additional information I ran speed tests between two CentOS 6.4 64-bit VMs with e1000 and achieved 26.1GBits/sec
-
Hello all,
I have been doing my own testing comparison between vmxnet3 and e1000 running on ESXi 5.1 build 914609. The pfsense VM is configured with a single CPU and 1GB of RAM running on a dual socket Xeon X5675 (3.07Ghz) machine. These tests were done with installed 64-bit pfsense 2.0.2.
I have a 10gige network so can test at speeds in excess of 1gige.
I had to apply the tuning suggestions at http://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/freebsd to achieve top speeds.
I had two main test scenarios:
Scenario 1: iperf between the pfsense VMs and a linux VM (e1000) running on the same ESXi box connected to the same port group. This test does not hit a physical network.
Scenario 2: iperf between the pfsense VM and an external linux machine connected via a 10gige switch and intel 10gige interface cards.For both of these scenarios I generated throughput with both e1000 and vmxnet3 three times and then took the highest value.
Scenario 1:
e1000: 2.42 Gbits/sec
vmxnet3: 17.8 Gbits/secScenario 2:
e1000: 2.8 Gbits/sec
vmxnet3: 8.87 Gbits/secSo you can see that at greater than 1gbps speeds that vmxnet3 makes a huge difference. With inter-VM traffic on the host running 7 times faster than e1000.
For additional information I ran speed tests between two CentOS 6.4 64-bit VMs with e1000 and achieved 26.1GBits/sec
Thanks for sharing this - any info on what CPU usage was like by the VM pfSense at these rates?
-
I'm afraid I wasn't looking. If I have to run these tests again I'll make a point of measuring.