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

    PfSense WAN Traffic Incredibly Slow on XenServer 6.5 SP1

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Virtualization
    11 Posts 3 Posters 3.2k 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.
    • ?
      Guest
      last edited by

      See: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88467.0

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

        Also to give a try: wrong configured power-settings in BIOS can make XenServer incredible slow.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • T
          tyh
          last edited by

          @johnkeates:

          See: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88467.0

          Thanks, John. I implemented that particular fix a while ago for the LAN interface as physical machines could access the net fine, but not VMs on the same host. Unless I've misunderstood something, I don't believe that this problem is related. I double-checked the settings regardless, and checksums are still turned off for the LAN interface.

          @Nagilum:

          Also to give a try: wrong configured power-settings in BIOS can make XenServer incredible slow.

          Would that be power settings for the host's BIOS, or for the VM's BIOS? Also, which settings in particular should I look at? Thanks.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            tyh
            last edited by

            For a test, I installed a fresh copy of pfSense on xenserver-secondary (the one having issues: Proliant G6). I connected the WAN interface to the modem, and created a private network called "Testlab LAN". I disabled checksumming on this private network (predictably, there was no internet until I did this), and connected a Windows VM to this network for testing. Again, I got woefully slow internet, so that rules out the original pfSense VM as being the problem. There has to be a difference in how the G6 host is configured when compared to the working host (Proliant G7). All other VMs on the G6 have no issues, but pfSense doesn't like it.

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

              How is the LAN-LAN speed (i.e. according to iperf)?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T
                tyh
                last edited by

                @johnkeates:

                How is the LAN-LAN speed (i.e. according to iperf)?

                At the moment the VMs are transferring over to another host so that I can install XenServer 7.0 on the problematic one, so I'll have to try benchmarking it when its up and running. Although I never tested performance with iperf, I was getting typical GbE speeds when transferring files. One thing is should perhaps note is that I needed to disable VT-d on the problematic host in order to install XenServer 6.5 in the first place; it would crash otherwise. I know that VT-d is often associated with graphics cards, but I wonder if pfSense requires more direct access to the NICs that cannot be achieved without VT-d.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • T
                  tyh
                  last edited by

                  Update:

                  I found the source of the slow WAN traffic: it is when using the HP NC364T quad-port NIC. It doesn't matter if I'm running XenServer 6.5 or 7.0, pfSense does not like using any ports on that NIC for WAN traffic. If I switch to the onboard Intel NIC for WAN, then I get full speed. The strange thing is that I can use the HP cards for LAN traffic with no such issue. So, now I have the LAN and OPT1 traffic on the HP NIC and the WAN traffic on the onboard, and I'm getting full speed.

                  Why would only WAN traffic be a problem?

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

                    @tyh:

                    Update:

                    Why would only WAN traffic be a problem?

                    Probably because of MTU, offload or connection differences. Did you assign the card via VT-d, SR-IOV or did you use bridges? I have the same card with a SuperMicro X10SLV running Xen 4.4 with VT-d and all four ports are working fine.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • T
                      tyh
                      last edited by

                      Interesting. VT-d is actually disabled on xenserver-secondary (the Proliant G6), because all XenServer versions refuse to install or boot with it enabled. In my initial post, I said it was only xenserver-secondary having issues, but it turns out that xenserver-primary also has problems when using that particular network card for WAN. I'm going to say that I'm also not using SR-IOV, mainly because this is the first time I've heard of it.

                      If the problem is related to VT-d, it makes sense that both hosts are affected, as CPU masking will likely have disabled VT-d for xenserver-primary (the G7) too, to keep the pool homogeneous.

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

                        Stange. That'd mean that the XenServer product is using a Dom0 that doesn't play nice with the hardware. I checked my inventory, I have two HP servers running Xen (not XenServer, just Xen), a DL180 G6 and a DL360 G6, and they are doing just fine. They are nearly identical setups; Xen 4.6 and Xen 4.8, but both Debian 8 as a Dom0 host, pfSense 2.3.2-p1 as firewall and a bunch of DomU's, all Linux (mix of Debian and Fedora). I'm using the internal NIC's on both of them, and pulling 100Mbit up/down. (branch office uplinks)

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