Network card speed limited to 286 MBit
-
i've never had issues with the e1000 nics to get towards gigabit speeds, so there is probably some sort of issue (autonegotiate ?)
you could try the vmxnet3 nics … they should be able to push you towards 2-3gbit on fairly recent server hardware.
third option would be to test the 2.3-RC snapshots
The link is up as "1000baseT <full-duplex>" so the autonegotiate seams to be right.
I've tried to switch the network adapters to vmxnet3. During the bootup I've configured the new interfaces as lan and wan, but after that I was unable to reach the webinterface and the ssh port. I was able to ping the firewall, but everything else was blocked. Also a ping from the firewall to the local network was possible. Is this a known problem after changing to this network card type and how can I solve it?
I've also tested the 2.3-RC snapshots. With that I got to 325 Mbit, not much more than in 2.2. Any other ideas?</full-duplex>
-
@BlueKobold:
Comparing a Linux distro without doing NAT and performing firewall rules against pfSense would be not really
fair and wise! What kind of CPU is there inside of this Dell machine? How many rules, vlans and other things
are running in pfSense or plain how many packets are installed?Here are the details about the CPU. (from CPU-Z)
Name: Intel Xeon DP
Codename: Dempsey
Package: Socket 771 LGA
Specification: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz (ES)
Hyper Threading is deactivatedHere are the details about my pfSense installation:
Rules:
8 wan rules
5 lan rules
1 OpenVPN ruleVlans:
no vlansRunning services:
apinger
dhcpd
dnsmasq
HAProxy
miniupnpd
ntpd
openvpn
squid
sshd
vmware-guestdInstalled Packages:
Cron
haproxy-1_5
iperf
Lightsquid
mailreport
Open-VM-Tools
OpenVPN Client Export Utility
Sarg
squid3
System PatchesAny idea what could slow down the transfer?
-
any errors in logs? any interface errors? tried creating a new VM ? might there be an issue with the vswitches ?
-
any errors in logs? any interface errors? tried creating a new VM ? might there be an issue with the vswitches ?
There are no "In/out errors" and no "Collisions" on the network interfaces.
I've checked the system log since the last restart and the only error message I found was for the external interface:
kernel: arpresolve: can't allocate llinfo for XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX on em1I don't think that there is an issue with the vm or the vswitches because I also tested the speed with iperf on an Ubuntu vm on the same server with the same network card type that is connected to the same vswitch and there I get speeds beyond 900 MBit.
-
have you tried without (open)vmware-tools ?
-
Any idea what could slow down the transfer?
Squid perhaps does or could be doing it.
have you tried without (open)vmware-tools ?
For sure they should be installed.
I don't think that there is an issue with the vm or the vswitches because I also tested the speed with iperf on an Ubuntu vm on the same server with the same network card type that is connected to the same vswitch and there I get speeds beyond 900 MBit.
Ubuntu, is not doing NAT, pfSense rules and Squid proxy so this could be really different from the pfSense
test as I see it right. -
For sure they should be installed.
no they shouldn't, they are optional
-
@BlueKobold:
Any idea what could slow down the transfer?
Squid perhaps does or could be doing it.
have you tried without (open)vmware-tools ?
For sure they should be installed.
I don't think that there is an issue with the vm or the vswitches because I also tested the speed with iperf on an Ubuntu vm on the same server with the same network card type that is connected to the same vswitch and there I get speeds beyond 900 MBit.
Ubuntu, is not doing NAT, pfSense rules and Squid proxy so this could be really different from the pfSense
test as I see it right.I've disabled squid and removed the open vm tools package, but the speed is still under 300 MBit. I've also shut down every other machine on the ESXi server so pfSense can take all the resources, but event that did not help. I've noticed that the CPU speed doesn't go much over 50%. (55 was max as far as I've seen) Maybe the problem is that the firewall cannot use all four cpu cores?
-
What does system activity look like? If you're seeing something like 100% usage, then you're effectively CPU bound.
-
What does system activity look like? If you're seeing something like 100% usage, then you're effectively CPU bound.
Here is the output of top when running the iperf test:
last pid: 32033; load averages: 1.60, 0.74, 0.38 up 1+08:50:47 10:27:11 49 processes: 1 running, 48 sleeping CPU: 3.2% user, 0.0% nice, 49.5% system, 0.1% interrupt, 47.2% idle Mem: 17M Active, 130M Inact, 171M Wired, 175M Buf, 1642M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 4096M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAN 77954 root 7 30 0 51952K 4528K sbwait 0 1:12 60.94% iperf 26538 www 1 20 0 33080K 10860K kqread 3 4:05 0.98% haprox 69605 root 1 52 20 17136K 2692K wait 2 0:44 0.98% sh 30253 root 1 52 20 8304K 1956K nanslp 2 0:00 0.98% sleep 21880 root 1 20 0 99M 9288K select 0 4:09 0.00% vmtool 27828 root 1 20 0 12456K 2128K select 1 0:52 0.00% apinge 62032 root 1 20 0 21160K 4740K select 0 0:40 0.00% miniup 44483 nobody 1 20 0 30264K 4324K select 1 0:23 0.00% dnsmas 54025 proxy 1 20 0 120M 29184K kqread 2 0:21 0.00% squid 40422 root 1 20 0 48692K 7892K kqread 1 0:17 0.00% lightt 19650 root 1 20 0 16804K 2292K bpf 1 0:17 0.00% filter 245 root 1 20 0 229M 21844K kqread 3 0:14 0.00% php-fp 69305 root 1 20 0 21732K 6136K select 1 0:13 0.00% openvp 65449 dhcpd 1 20 0 24848K 13832K select 1 0:09 0.00% dhcpd 3672 root 1 20 0 28344K 18104K select 3 0:09 0.00% ntpd 46979 root 1 20 0 14648K 2408K select 0 0:07 0.00% syslog 27862 root 1 20 0 28328K 2952K piperd 2 0:03 0.00% rrdtooI never saw that more than 64% of the cpu where used when pfsense was running the iperf server.
I've now tried switching iperf server and client so that pfsense is just the client and with that I am getting more speed. (about 433 MBit) I also get more CPU load. (about 90% at max) I think this means the limiting factor is the cpu.
I' am thinking about ordering a separate pfsense hardware firewall. (e.g. the "SG-4860 1U pfSense
Security Gateway Appliance") This firewall should get me near the 1 GBit throughoutput or is there better hardware for pfSense? -
It typically comes down to hardware or configuration. My home PFSense box is getting about 3.9Gb/s at 15% load. That's tested with one client on the WAN connecting to a client in the LAN, and running iperf through the firewall, which also means NAT is going on. That was nearly 2Gb on the WAN port and another 2Gb on the LAN port.
I am using a Haswell i5 with an Intel i350-T2 NIC and running on the metal, no guest VM here.
-
I've noticed that the CPU speed doesn't go much over 50%. (55 was max as far as I've seen) Maybe the problem is that the firewall cannot use all four cpu cores?
At the WAN Port and using PPPoE it would be using only one single CPU core at the moment and not more.
I've now tried switching iperf server and client so that pfsense is just the client and with that I am getting more speed. (about 433 MBit) I also get more CPU load. (about 90% at max) I think this means the limiting factor is the cpu.
If I had to guess, you're being limited by your RAM speed more than anything else.
That's not quite how it works. The packet filter, the IP forwarding parts, and even NAT
(part of pf, but run at a different phase) all hit the memory system.It's likely not that your CPU can't keep up, it's that your memory system is saturated.
I' am thinking about ordering a separate pfsense hardware firewall. (e.g. the "SG-4860 1U pfSense
Security Gateway Appliance") This firewall should get me near the 1 GBit throughoutput or is there better
hardware for pfSense?It is likes it is for now, also there will only one CPU core be used for the entire WAN part, if PPPoE is in usage.
I am using a Haswell i5 with an Intel i350-T2 NIC and running on the metal, no guest VM here.
Will be a more strong and more powerful appliance then the older Intel Xeon CPUs and also with faster RAM
I would imagine and on top of this an Intel i5 core will be not the same as an lower end Intel Atom CPU or SoC
core that shoud be compared against. The Intel Core i5 CPU core is much more powerful the the other ones.
But if now, someone wnat to save eceltric power it could be a hint to go with a modern Intel Xeon E3-12xxv3
CPU with 4 CPU core running @3,xGHz or more to get the same results and with a new v5 one it could also
be used RAM with more Clock speed or frequency. -
@BlueKobold:
I've noticed that the CPU speed doesn't go much over 50%. (55 was max as far as I've seen) Maybe the problem is that the firewall cannot use all four cpu cores?
At the WAN Port and using PPPoE it would be using only one single CPU core at the moment and not more.
I've now tried switching iperf server and client so that pfsense is just the client and with that I am getting more speed. (about 433 MBit) I also get more CPU load. (about 90% at max) I think this means the limiting factor is the cpu.
If I had to guess, you're being limited by your RAM speed more than anything else.
That's not quite how it works. The packet filter, the IP forwarding parts, and even NAT
(part of pf, but run at a different phase) all hit the memory system.It's likely not that your CPU can't keep up, it's that your memory system is saturated.
I' am thinking about ordering a separate pfsense hardware firewall. (e.g. the "SG-4860 1U pfSense
Security Gateway Appliance") This firewall should get me near the 1 GBit throughoutput or is there better
hardware for pfSense?It is likes it is for now, also there will only one CPU core be used for the entire WAN part, if PPPoE is in usage.
I am using a Haswell i5 with an Intel i350-T2 NIC and running on the metal, no guest VM here.
Will be a more strong and more powerful appliance then the older Intel Xeon CPUs and also with faster RAM
I would imagine and on top of this an Intel i5 core will be not the same as an lower end Intel Atom CPU or SoC
core that shoud be compared against. The Intel Core i5 CPU core is much more powerful the the other ones.
But if now, someone wnat to save eceltric power it could be a hint to go with a modern Intel Xeon E3-12xxv3
CPU with 4 CPU core running @3,xGHz or more to get the same results and with a new v5 one it could also
be used RAM with more Clock speed or frequency.I'am not using PPPoE. I have a direct internet connection over ethernet. (Using a fiber to ethernet media converter)
I've done some ram speed tests with my Ubuntu VM:root@ubuntux64:~# mbw 32 | grep AVG AVG Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.04285 MiB: 32.00000 Copy: 746.781 MiB/s AVG Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.04170 MiB: 32.00000 Copy: 767.351 MiB/s AVG Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.02452 MiB: 32.00000 Copy: 1305.249 MiB/s root@ubuntux64:~# mbw -b 4096 32 | grep AVG AVG Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.04103 MiB: 32.00000 Copy: 779.965 MiB/s AVG Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.04168 MiB: 32.00000 Copy: 767.845 MiB/s AVG Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.02514 MiB: 32.00000 Copy: 1273.080 MiB/sIs my ram to slow to get the gigabit through output?
-
Update:
I'am now running a pfSense Firewall on a Dell PowerEdge R220 using this fiber card: https://www.startech.com/ch/Netzwerk-IO/Adapter-Karten/PCIe-Gigabit-Ethernet-LWL-Karte-Offen-SFP~PEX1000SFP2
I now got almost Gigabit througoutput. (about 940 MBits) The hardware works very good with pfSense.