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

    Openvpn bsdcrypto acceleration

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Off-Topic & Non-Support Discussion
    31 Posts 3 Posters 9.7k 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.
    • 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
                              • N
                                newbieuser1234
                                last edited by

                                $ 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?

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

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

                                  Steve

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

                                    How are you testing throughput?

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

                                      A ridiculous long chain of machines!  :D
                                      An OpenVPN connection between two machines, the box I'm testing and one that's much more powerful to guarantee it's not slowing things down. I establish the VPN and then run iperf using the powerful end as the server and a laptop behind the test box as a client.
                                      I saw ~25Mbps with various encryption types with the card but ~33Mbps once I removed it.

                                      Steve

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

                                        two machines on the same router, but different interfaces?

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

                                          Yes as it happens they are connected via separate interfaces on my home router. They could just as easily have been connected directly though.

                                          Steve

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

                                            Thanks for the info. I'll try it out and see what results I get.  What setup do you like for the best bang for your buck for SMB users. 10 or less users.

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