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

    Openvpn bsdcrypto acceleration

    Off-Topic & Non-Support Discussion
    3
    31
    9.1k
    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.
    • N
      newbieuser1234
      last edited by

      Running across something strange.  When I run openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc, I get 121k.  When I run openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc -engine cryptodev, I get the same result. I thought the bsd crypto engine was a software accelerator? any help is appreciated. Thanks

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        doktornotor Banned
        last edited by

        And? You have some HW accelerator on your system?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          newbieuser1234
          last edited by

          I don't have a hardware accelerator on my system. I read the pfsense post on vpn accelerators and am trying to determine if I want to buy this: http://store.netgate.com/-P40.aspx  with a VPN1411 or a atom 1.8gz, 4gb of ram box to build a SMB router.  I mainly need to stream cctv video over openvpn.  I have a 1.8gx atom now but only achieve very slow benchmarks, 27k compared to an neoware 1gz, 1GB ram system.  Is the 2d13 with an accelerator a better system for vpn performance then an atom?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            doktornotor Banned
            last edited by

            Well, if you do not have an accelerator, then you obviously will get the same result. This is on the exact same board you linked"

            openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc

            
            To get the most accurate results, try to run this
            program when this computer is idle.
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 77880 aes-128-cbc's in 0.13s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 79122 aes-128-cbc's in 0.11s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 67042 aes-128-cbc's in 0.08s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 48649 aes-128-cbc's in 0.09s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 11248 aes-128-cbc's in 0.01s
            OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013
            built on: date not available
            options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(ptr,risc1,16,long) aes(partial) blowfish(idx)
            compiler: cc
            available timing options: USE_TOD HZ=128 [sysconf value]
            timing function used: getrusage
            The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
            type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
            aes-128-cbc       9330.79k    44088.70k   202735.21k   550313.46k 12985289.74k
            
            

            openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc -engine cryptodev

            
            engine "cryptodev" set.
            To get the most accurate results, try to run this
            program when this computer is idle.
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 82417 aes-128-cbc's in 0.03s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 80139 aes-128-cbc's in 0.07s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 69611 aes-128-cbc's in 0.09s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 48680 aes-128-cbc's in 0.08s
            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 11247 aes-128-cbc's in 0.00s
            OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013
            built on: date not available
            options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(ptr,risc1,16,long) aes(partial) blowfish(idx)
            compiler: cc
            available timing options: USE_TOD HZ=128 [sysconf value]
            timing function used: getrusage
            The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
            type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
            aes-128-cbc      52340.72k    73602.20k   202518.54k   610452.37k 80397403.14k
            
            
            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • N
              newbieuser1234
              last edited by

              Which board, the ALIX? If so, then it smokes my atom dual core 1.8gz.  I was only getting 27k on the atom with 4gb of ram.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                doktornotor Banned
                last edited by

                Yeah, Alix.2D13. Note that just the aes-128 is supported, though.

                
                glxsb0: <amd geode="" lx="" security="" block="" (aes-128-cbc,="" rng)="">mem 0xefff4000-0xefff7f:</amd> 
                

                There are some figures for a hifn accelerator here: http://store.netgate.com/Soekris-VPN1411-Crypto-accelerator-P319.aspx

                IPsec maximum throughput on ALIX boards without and with vpn1411*:

                3DES: 13.7 Mbps vs 34.6 Mbps
                AES: 19.4 Mbps vs 34.2 Mbps
                AES256: 13.5 Mbps vs 34.2 Mbps

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • N
                  newbieuser1234
                  last edited by

                  obviously you probably don't run snort on a cf card do you?  How many concurrent connections for openvpn have you had? have you noticed a performance drop or do you think highly of the alix board?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • D
                    doktornotor Banned
                    last edited by

                    I do NOT run snort, ever. Anywhere. Period. :P (For the Alix, absolutely a no go anyway.)

                    As for OpenVPN, pretty good for the stuff the HW is used. All I need is a couple of users connected via OVPN or IPsec using some DB servers on LAN, though. Haven't done any bandwidth benchmarks frankly, not needed for me.

                    For busy sites, well this one should rock: http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm - however "Production expected for early 2014"  :( :'(

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • N
                      newbieuser1234
                      last edited by

                      Do you not like snort? I know it probably wouldn't work well on the cf card, but do you have a reason not to use it?  So overall you are satisfied with the alix?  I just need those for smaller networks supporting 10 or less users with cctv over openvpn at night.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D
                        doktornotor Banned
                        last edited by

                        @newbieuser1234:

                        Do you not like snort? I know it probably wouldn't work well on the cf card, but do you have a reason not to use it?

                        The CF is not the main problem. The CPU/RAM definitely is. Otherwise, beyond being the ultimate source of all sorts of cryptic breakage, requiring 24/7 babysitting and endless tuning and disabling of the broken rules, I'm pretty sure its excellent software.  ::)

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • N
                          newbieuser1234
                          last edited by

                          10-4. Do you use pfblocker?

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

                            You should be able to get at least 50Mpbs of VPN from that Atom board, probably more. Without anything else running at least. See this post:

                            http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,27780

                            Steve

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • N
                              newbieuser1234
                              last edited by

                              Thanks. I wonder why mine is so slow. I have glxsb or whatever checked and the option for bsdcryptoengine is selected in the openvpn server settings.

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

                                Glxsb won't help you on an Atom, it's a Geode specific hardware driver.
                                Are you actually seeing very bad vpn throughput or just bad results from open SSL speed?

                                Steve

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • N
                                  newbieuser1234
                                  last edited by

                                  no complaints, just the speed test for openssl. both of the ones i test are running a magnetic hd, would a cf card unit return a faster speed?

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

                                    It shouldn't make any difference to either real vpn throughput or open-ssl speed results.

                                    Steve

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • N
                                      newbieuser1234
                                      last edited by

                                      I don't see the geode recognized in the dmesg output:  Do i need to have 64 bit?  This is weird.

                                      cryptosoft0: <software crypto="">on motherboard
                                      padlock0: No ACE support.

                                      there is no entry for glsxb either as noted in this post:

                                      "Boards utilizing the AMD Geode platform typically have the "AMD Geode LX Security Block" which supports certain encryption types. It will show up in dmesg as the glxsb device:"  glxsb0: <amd geode="" lx="" security="" block="" (aes-128-cbc,="" rng)="">mem 0xefff4000-0xefff7fff irq 9 at device 1.2 on pci0
                                                        http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Are_cryptographic_accelerators_supported</amd></software>

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

                                        This is on your Atom box yes? Then that's expected, there's no hardware crypto.

                                        Steve

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • N
                                          newbieuser1234
                                          last edited by

                                          So essentially the dual core is slower for openvpn than an Alix 2d3 with a vpn1411 accelerator ?

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

                                            Well I would say no because of Databeestje's test report on the D510. He was seeing >50Mbps VPN traffic in one direction. The Alix can't manage that even with the Hifn accelerator.

                                            You haven't posted a complete output from openssl speed yet. That might show something.
                                            Coincidentally I have been playing around with an old firebox testing it's Safenet crypto card this evening. I've found some interesting things. Here's some output for comparrison:

                                            Without the Safenet 1141.

                                            [2.0.3-RELEASE][root@pfSense.localdomain]/root(1): openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc
                                            
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 4443103 aes-128-cbc's in 2.89s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 1258138 aes-128-cbc's in 2.91s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 318359 aes-128-cbc's in 2.87s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 80907 aes-128-cbc's in 2.89s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 10450 aes-128-cbc's in 2.98s
                                            OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013
                                            built on: date not available
                                            options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(ptr,risc1,16,long) aes(partial) blowfish(idx) 
                                            compiler: cc
                                            available timing options: USE_TOD HZ=128 [sysconf value]
                                            timing function used: getrusage
                                            The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
                                            type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
                                            aes-128-cbc      24627.37k    27709.88k    28411.35k    28646.12k    28707.23k
                                            
                                            

                                            With the card:

                                            [2.0.3-RELEASE][root@pfSense.localdomain]/root(13): openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc
                                            
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 117285 aes-128-cbc's in 0.14s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 110095 aes-128-cbc's in 0.05s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 93032 aes-128-cbc's in 0.04s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 56316 aes-128-cbc's in 0.05s
                                            Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 8643 aes-128-cbc's in 0.00s
                                            OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013
                                            built on: date not available
                                            options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(ptr,risc1,16,long) aes(partial) blowfish(idx) 
                                            compiler: cc
                                            available timing options: USE_TOD HZ=128 [sysconf value]
                                            timing function used: getrusage
                                            The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
                                            type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
                                            aes-128-cbc      13690.32k   156398.83k   538937.61k  1147202.67k 70803456.00k
                                            
                                            

                                            The numbers make it look as though the card speeds things up massively but in reality my testing has showed that the box performs better, for OpenVPN at least, without the card in it. Moreover the card has to actually be removed from the box. No amount of selecting 'no hardware encryption' had any effect, which is how the OCF is supposed to work as I understand it. The wiki page exaplins this somewhat by saying that in reality VPN traffic is small blocks of data so the really big numbers are not any help.

                                            Steve

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