NanoBSD CPU usage high on MultiWan, PHP processes abound
-
I am not sure but this is getting interesting! May be some sort of priority thing. I won't be able to do too much more work as I am flying across the country to do some IT work.
-
Safe travels. Feel free to assume that I'm making some rookie mistake and float it out there for me to check.
I rebooted the router and sent another client into the secondary WAN to test the ping through it and found the same erratic behaviour that performing the ping directly from the secondary WAN interface on the router was causing. Then I went back to the original client that was saturating that WAN and had previously not had issue with pings to find that now it was also consistent with the poor ping performance.
I am unable to replicate the state now where I had good ping times from the client that was saturating the upstream while seeing bad ones from the router on that interface. The good news is that they are all inline with each other at least!
arri
-
Safe travels. Feel free to assume that I'm making some rookie mistake and float it out there for me to check.
I rebooted the router and sent another client into the secondary WAN to test the ping through it and found the same erratic behaviour that performing the ping directly from the secondary WAN interface on the router was causing. Then I went back to the original client that was saturating that WAN and had previously not had issue with pings to find that now it was also consistent with the poor ping performance.
I am unable to replicate the state now where I had good ping times from the client that was saturating the upstream while seeing bad ones from the router on that interface. The good news is that they are all inline with each other at least!
arri
Indeed. I missed two flights. I have hate airlines. Canceled that contract. Horrible day.
- Raise ICMP priority
- Lower interval or use combine to lower alarm repetitions
- Traffic shape so you leave a bit of space for the ICMP
- Try setting the down time higher.
-
You might try a 2.1.1 snapshot that has many fixes for various things in it.
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.1.1_New_Features_and_Changes
The are still pre-release snapshots though so new bugs may be added. ;)Steve
-
The Mac is connected to the Alix router through two unmanaged switches, and a firewall rule sends it through the secondary WAN.
Maybe the rule is only for TCP/UDP and ICMP ping from the Mac is still going out the default gateway? That would explain the ping being so good. You could traceroute from Mac to an external host to see which way the ICMP is really going.
It does sound like the link is so saturated that the apinger monitoring is struggling to see any decent numbers and is deciding the link is bad. -
The Mac is connected to the Alix router through two unmanaged switches, and a firewall rule sends it through the secondary WAN.
Maybe the rule is only for TCP/UDP and ICMP ping from the Mac is still going out the default gateway? That would explain the ping being so good. You could traceroute from Mac to an external host to see which way the ICMP is really going.
It does sound like the link is so saturated that the apinger monitoring is struggling to see any decent numbers and is deciding the link is bad.You are correct, I noticed before the reboot that my rule was limited to TCP/UDP, and updated it to "any." That explains the new consistency. Nice catch!
It's working fine with the ludicrous numbers for monitoring delays and decreasing the number of checks that gateway does. If I find the time, I'll give a snapshot a try as this is the box for doing that on.
arri
-
The Mac is connected to the Alix router through two unmanaged switches, and a firewall rule sends it through the secondary WAN.
Maybe the rule is only for TCP/UDP and ICMP ping from the Mac is still going out the default gateway? That would explain the ping being so good. You could traceroute from Mac to an external host to see which way the ICMP is really going.
It does sound like the link is so saturated that the apinger monitoring is struggling to see any decent numbers and is deciding the link is bad.You are correct, I noticed before the reboot that my rule was limited to TCP/UDP, and updated it to "any." That explains the new consistency. Nice catch!
It's working fine with the ludicrous numbers for monitoring delays and decreasing the number of checks that gateway does. If I find the time, I'll give a snapshot a try as this is the box for doing that on.
arri
I am not sure if its going to change anything. Turn off gateway monitor on that wan and then test with backblaze and ping out and see if you see a difference. There could be something going on where the added load on the box is degrading the connection further or something. If you get the same loss/latency without apinger running on that WAN then you are dealing with normal saturation? This will need to be fixed using one of the things listed in my above post.
-
I am not sure if its going to change anything. Turn off gateway monitor on that wan and then test with backblaze and ping out and see if you see a difference. There could be something going on where the added load on the box is degrading the connection further or something. If you get the same loss/latency without apinger running on that WAN then you are dealing with normal saturation? This will need to be fixed using one of the things listed in my above post.
I finally got around to trying this for you. With the gateway monitor off on the secondary wan, and fully saturated upstream traffic out of it, ping times from both the configurator page using the secondary wan gateway and from the client routed through the firewall (this time all traffic not just tcp/udp;) are from two to five seconds.
I think it's clearly just a congested interface the way Backblaze saturates it through their SSL tunnel.
-
I am not sure if its going to change anything. Turn off gateway monitor on that wan and then test with backblaze and ping out and see if you see a difference. There could be something going on where the added load on the box is degrading the connection further or something. If you get the same loss/latency without apinger running on that WAN then you are dealing with normal saturation? This will need to be fixed using one of the things listed in my above post.
I finally got around to trying this for you. With the gateway monitor off on the secondary wan, and fully saturated upstream traffic out of it, ping times from both the configurator page using the secondary wan gateway and from the client routed through the firewall (this time all traffic not just tcp/udp;) are from two to five seconds.
I think it's clearly just a congested interface the way Backblaze saturates it through their SSL tunnel.
Is that same, worse or better than results with apinger on? Would have been interesting if apinger perpetuates the problem with the highly increased load.
-
Having the same CPU rising behaviour on our PCEngine ALIX with Nano Intall (2.1.4 stable).
In France, we experiment loads of trouble over xDSL connections. Mainly loss, caused even by a bad synchro or by a user that get the line to saturate because of big downloads / uploads.
This causes pf to experience a hight CPU load when GW is considered as offline by PF.We did the trick of gateway polling in "Routing->Gateways->Edit gateway" :
- Advanced->Packet Loss Thresholds = 20% / 40% (default 10% / 20%)
- Probe Interval = 5s (default = 1s)
- Down = 60s (default = 10s)For what we experienced so far with those values is a better responsivness of PHP UI, and RRD graph shows a fall of CPU load. Still having those settings for test for few hours on PF that are experimenting DSL sync difficulties.
It looks good so far, and looks like increasing apinger tests and faillure decision, gives the ALIX more time to execute what it has to execute, and CPU graph falls dramatically (so far…).
Sounds to be a good and quick idea to play with the values above.
