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

    AES-NI acceleration of AES-GCM w/IPSec coming in 2.2

    IPsec
    3
    10
    3.4k
    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.
    • ?
      Guest
      last edited by

      I live in Austin.  I have a 1gbps/1gbps line to my home, which is run by a FW-7551 (2 core Rangeley @ 1.7GHz). 
      There is a C2758 (8 core Rangeley @ 2.4GHz) at work.  (Work is connected via 10Gbps.)

      both systems are running a very recent (today) snapshot of pfSense-2.2

      I have an IPSec tunnel between the FW-7551 and C2758 running AES-GCM with AES-NI acceleration.

      jims-mini is a mac mini on my desk.
      172.21.0.95 is an Intel i5 NUC on my desk at home.

      So this is, in many-respects, a "real world" test, not an artificial "in-the-lab" test.

      I'm seeing between 729mbps and 891mbps throughput in the below.

      jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
        % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                      Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
      100  123M  100  123M    0    0  8031k      0  0:00:15  0:00:15 –:--:-- 7291k
      jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
        % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                      Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
      100  123M  100  123M    0    0  7134k      0  0:00:17  0:00:17 --:--:-- 7348k
      jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
        % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                      Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
      100  123M  100  123M    0    0  7302k      0  0:00:17  0:00:17 --:--:-- 8012k
      jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
        % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                      Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
      100  123M  100  123M    0    0  8598k      0  0:00:14  0:00:14 --:--:-- 8228k
      jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
        % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                      Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
      100  123M  100  123M    0    0  8212k      0  0:00:15  0:00:15 --:--:-- 8919k
      jims-mini:~ jim$

      More formal testing will come, but I'm pretty stoked about the above.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • ?
        Guest
        last edited by

        Apparently, I can't do simple math.

        It's been pointed out that 123MB in 15 seconds was about 65-70Mbps.

        The current 2.2-RC snapshots are running about 200Mbps on the same hardware.

        jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
          % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                        Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
        100  123M  100  123M    0    0  25.5M      0  0:00:04  0:00:04 –:--:-- 25.8M
        jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
          % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                        Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
        100  123M  100  123M    0    0  25.8M      0  0:00:04  0:00:04 --:--:-- 25.8M
        jims-mini:~ jim$ curl http://172.21.0.95/p2r.tgz > /tmp/p2r.tgz
          % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed  Time    Time    Time  Current
                                        Dload  Upload  Total  Spent    Left  Speed
        100  123M  100  123M    0    0  25.9M      0  0:00:04  0:00:04 --:--:-- 26.0M

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • B
          biggsy
          last edited by

          Thanks.

          It would be interesting to see what a pair of those 8-core Rangeleys could do between them.  (Maybe in a code box or Tt tags for readability ;))

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • K
            kejianshi
            last edited by

            Yeah - I think it would be most fair to put a couple of those on a table and connect them to each other through a VPN in a small network and take the ISPs out of it completely.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • ?
              Guest
              last edited by

              Yes, that would be interesting, but I've not gotten to it yet.

              I am testing with iperf/iperf3 now, because things have gotten too fast for my "curl" test.

              I'm getting a consistent 310-315Mbps with iperf between to work, across my home 1Gbps link.
              (C2758 on one end, FW-7551 (C2358) on the other, both running today's snapshot.)

              Earlier, I setup a pair of 1U boxes each with a E3-1275 at 3.5ghz. Each has a 10G Intel X520 Dual port card.
              The endpoints for load generation are two Dell R200 servers running stock FreeBSD (10.0 on one, 10.1 on the other), each with a Chelsio card.

              Quick-n-dirty single stream (iperf3) test results:
              AES-GCM no AES-NI - ~125 Mbps
              AES-GCM with AES-NI - ~1.75 Gbps.
              AES-GCM with AES-NI and pf disabled, ~2.2 Gbps.
              AES-CBC runs at around 415-425 Mbps.

              straight-up iperf3 between the same hosts
              pf Enabled, single stream:  3.28 Gbps
              pf Enabled, 10 stream: 5.15 Gbps
              pf Disabled, single stream: 4.63 Gbps
              pf Disabled, 10 stream: 6.91 Gbps

              That's all for now.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                kejianshi
                last edited by

                Thats certainly fast enough for the vast majority of people.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • ?
                  Guest
                  last edited by

                  @kejianshi:

                  Thats certainly fast enough for the vast majority of people.

                  but not for me.  :-)

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • K
                    kejianshi
                    last edited by

                    I will be using 10gb network for the next foreseeable future.  If I can max that out, I will be happy.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • ?
                      Guest
                      last edited by

                      You'll have to wait a bit.  That's not going to be in 2.2.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • ?
                        Guest
                        last edited by

                        This morning's results.

                        Remember, this is a real-world network, not a lab situation.

                        (So fun to watch…)

                        ![Screen Shot 2014-12-30 at 10.08.28 AM.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2014-12-30 at 10.08.28 AM.png)
                        ![Screen Shot 2014-12-30 at 10.08.28 AM.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2014-12-30 at 10.08.28 AM.png_thumb)

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