Unbelieveably bad performance

stephenw10

Was there not some issue with the Xen nic drivers? Was the 2.1.X vm using xn nics?

https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=84255.0

Steve

johnpoz

"upgraded to 2.2, and it no longer works."

All I can tell you from your sniff you posted is the traffic looks to have been sent on. Did it go out the right interface? I am not sure from that sniff.. But clearly the packets where forwarded to the IP. For example the top 2, you see the syn to 65.98.6.38, and then .000066 seconds later packet sent to 10.166.109.1

This tells me pfsense forwarded the packet - but I can not tell from the picture what interface that was captured on, if could see the mac address for example would know what interface it left on, etc.

From what I see in the sniff the problem with the 109.1 box getting the packet after it left pfsense or in the answer?. Lots of things could cause that - but then again can not be sure that the packet went out the correct interface from the image. What kind filter did you use for the sniff? I don't see any sort of broadcast traffic or other traffic that would validate that pfsense is seeing any traffic from 109.1 at all?

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

"upgraded to 2.2, and it no longer works."

All I can tell you from your sniff you posted is the traffic looks to have been sent on. Did it go out the right interface? I am not sure from that sniff.. But clearly the packets where forwarded to the IP. For example the top 2, you see the syn to 65.98.6.38, and then .000066 seconds later packet sent to 10.166.109.1

This tells me pfsense forwarded the packet - but I can not tell from the picture what interface that was captured on, if could see the mac address for example would know what interface it left on, etc.

From what I see in the sniff the problem with the 109.1 box getting the packet after it left pfsense or in the answer?. Lots of things could cause that - but then again can not be sure that the packet went out the correct interface from the image. What kind filter did you use for the sniff? I don't see any sort of broadcast traffic or other traffic that would validate that pfsense is seeing any traffic from 109.1 at all?

I told it to capture 80 only. I'll capture *.

johnpoz

Do 2 distinct captures.. Its easier to read that way.. Do one on the wan and one on the lan.. I just use tcpdump from ssh connection to do it.

Or post up the actual capture so can see the mac - so you can validate it forwarded it out the correct interface.

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

Do 2 distinct captures.. Its easier to read that way.. Do one on the wan and one on the lan.. I just use tcpdump from ssh connection to do it.

Or post up the actual capture so can see the mac - so you can validate it forwarded it out the correct interface.

Can't post the capture here. I'll upload them somewhere in a couple.

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

Do 2 distinct captures.. Its easier to read that way.. Do one on the wan and one on the lan.. I just use tcpdump from ssh connection to do it.

Or post up the actual capture so can see the mac - so you can validate it forwarded it out the correct interface.

http://douglashaber.com/dump/WANCapture.cap
http://douglashaber.com/dump/LANCapture.cap

stephenw10

Just to confirm, you've definitely not fallen foul of the driver change issue I linked to? I can't really see why it would affect you since you're not using VLANs or anything other than a standard config but it's worth checking.

Steve

Douglas Haber

@stephenw10:

Just to confirm, you've definitely not fallen foul of the driver change issue I linked to? I can't really see why it would affect you since you're not using VLANs or anything other than a standard config but it's worth checking.

Steve

I missed your question. Probably.

It was not xn in 2.1.5, it was re(4)

Hrmm.. found this on the ML:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2014-April/002065.html

Maybe FreeBSD 10 just does not play nice on Xen.

Edit 2 - more quirks involving XS..

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2014-February/002010.html

stephenw10

Hmm, well that's interesting. You specified Realtek emulation in the Xen config then I assume? I'm unfamiliar with Xen.
I would try removing the paravirtualised NIC support in Xen so that pfSense goes back to using the re driver and see if that makes any difference. Additionally I would set it to emulate Intel NICs rather than Realtek.
As I say though I can't really see why the xn driver should be causing problems in your basic setup. Try removing all the hardware offloading options in System: Advanced: Networking:

Steve

Douglas Haber

@stephenw10:

Hmm, well that's interesting. You specified Realtek emulation in the Xen config then I assume? I'm unfamiliar with Xen.
I would try removing the paravirtualised NIC support in Xen so that pfSense goes back to using the re driver and see if that makes any difference. Additionally I would set it to emulate Intel NICs rather than Realtek.
As I say though I can't really see why the xn driver should be causing problems in your basic setup. Try removing all the hardware offloading options in System: Advanced: Networking:

Steve

Realtek is the default with XenServer. Switching to Intel emulation requires some hackery I am not ready to be doing yet. I don't want to change Xen necessarily.

EDIT: By hackery, I mean just a small change really (http://www.netservers.co.uk/articles/open-source-howtos/citrix_e1000_gigabit) but I also have other VM's running, and don't want to change too much.

I found this, which is interesting..

ssh from the Windows PV host to the FreeBSD PV DomU host appears to work
fine. Attempting to 'route' traffic from the Windows PV host 'through' the
FreeBSD PV DomU fails - pings go, DNS goes, initial TCP 'setups' go - but
stuff dies thereafter (i.e. may be packet size related or something).

Sounds pretty much like my issue (re: http not working) even though as another poster mentioned, requests are there.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2014-February/002018.html

johnpoz

ok this looks different than before..

So looks like your getting back the syn,ack.. But then when you send a get, a 404 is sent back.. But then that is not working..

GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 65.98.6.38
Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/webp,/;q=0.8
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.95 Safari/537.36
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, sdch
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:45:34 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.22 (Debian)

Then on the lan side you don't see the get?? Something really odd going on here..

From your wan sniff you can see that 404 was sent, but then you see retrans on the get and 404. But on the lan side not even seeing the get.. Were these sniffs taken at the same time?

edit: Ok looks like these were taken at different times.. wan goes from 7:45:31 to 7:47:14 But lan is from 7:47:31 to 7:49:16… You really need to take capture at the same time.. And wouldn't hurt to have sniff running over the same time period on the webserver.

wansniffinfo.png_thumb

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

ok this looks different than before..

So looks like your getting back the syn,ack.. But then when you send a get, a 404 is sent back.. But then that is not working..

GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 65.98.6.38
Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/webp,/;q=0.8
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.95 Safari/537.36
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, sdch
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:45:34 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.22 (Debian)

Then on the lan side you don't see the get?? Something really odd going on here..

From your wan sniff you can see that 404 was sent, but then you see retrans on the get and 404. But on the lan side not even seeing the get.. Were these sniffs taken at the same time?

the 404 is to be expected. i wanted a simple thing to be spit back for testing purposes, rather than several MB webpage ,which is what would be on it in production. there is nothing to be served on the webserver now.
very close. couple of seconds apart max. i'll work on a set up exact same time ones.

johnpoz

no they are not a couple of seconds apart.. they are completely different time frames. See my edit.

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

no they are not a couple of seconds apart.. they are completely different time frames. See my edit.

I'll run a new set, same time. Hang on.

Douglas Haber

Same URL's. Same time. Literally within 1-2 seconds this time, as quick as I could move cursor and hit go.

No webserver capture in this group, though

EDIT: let me see if i can do it again and turn up verbosity on pfsense, it's capture is way way less verbose with the LAN interface than my tcpdump was for the WAN

johnpoz

well wan is going to see all the noise of a typical wan connection ;) I would expect to see lots of noise ;)

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

well wan is going to see all the noise of a typical wan connection ;) I would expect to see lots of noise ;)

I forgot to take of the default limit of 100 packets on the pf capture. :-X

Redoing now

Douglas Haber

@johnpoz:

well wan is going to see all the noise of a typical wan connection ;) I would expect to see lots of noise ;)

Correctly done dumps are there now.

marcelloc

Are you using xentools on this vm?

http://blog.feld.me/posts/2014/07/pfsense-on-citrix-xenserver/

I've played with a 2.2 beta version on xen server with ~800mbit throughput IIRC.

johnpoz

Ok so looking at these dumps..

You have two connections coming in to 80, one from source port 43293 and another on 27618 both from this 67.81.220.99 IP

You see the syn,ack back and then the ack from the 43293 connection. But you never see the ack from the syn,ack sent to 27618

You also see a get, an ack to that and then sending of the 404.. Clearly you can see the stuff pfsense gets on its wan it sends on to the lan. Stuff it sees on the lan it sends out the wan.

I see pfsense doing what it is suppose to do, it forwards on the packets.. But then on the wan side it seems that box is not getting the responses what were sent, so it sends retrans.. And on the lan side it doesn't get the reponse it expected so it retrans.

Looks to me you have a issue with communication on the wan side..

So you see the get come in on wan, you set it sent on to the lan, you see the lan ack back, you see it send 404.. But then you see inbound from 220.99 saying hey Im going to resend this get because I never got an ack.. And it clearly didn't get the 404 that was sent.

Pfsense from your sniff clearly put it on the wire - but seems to be getting lost.. And 220.99 is not getting it.

sniffs.png_thumb