Openvpn bsdcrypto acceleration

doktornotor

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

newbieuser1234

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.

doktornotor

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

newbieuser1234

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?

doktornotor

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" :( :'(

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? 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.

doktornotor

@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. ::)

newbieuser1234

10-4. Do you use pfblocker?

stephenw10

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

newbieuser1234

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.

stephenw10

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

newbieuser1234

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?

stephenw10

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

Steve

newbieuser1234

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>

stephenw10

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

Steve

newbieuser1234

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

stephenw10

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

newbieuser1234

$ openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc
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 20742.63k 22943.08k 23652.34k 23832.40k 23883.13k

I get 7Mb on a 1gz, 1 gb of ram via neoware box. smokes my dual core…

$ openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc
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 38135.72k 190433.15k 884307.27k 2274631.30k 4013679.73k

$ openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc -engine via
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 46147.44k 189884.01k 676914.89k 3349549.48k 6945314.10k

Any way to test actual throughput? iperf?

stephenw10

It should do the Via probably has the Padlock encryption engine built in. But like I say above numbers aren't everything. ;)

Steve

newbieuser1234

How are you testing throughput?