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

    UPDATE: 2.4.3 is slower than 2.4.2 (Was: Has FAIRQ Behaviour Changed in 2.4.3?)

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software
    17 Posts 4 Posters 2.6k 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.
    • KOMK
      KOM
      last edited by

      https://atxfiles.pfsense.org/mirror/downloads/old/

      I would strongly advise to try all of this on physical hardware.  It wouldn't be the first time that someone got tripped up by a hypervisor glitch.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • ?
        A Former User
        last edited by

        Yea, I'll see if I can dig out some actual hardware to try it on.
        It's just the old thing of it was working on 2.4.2-P1.
        I know because that was the first pfSense version I've deployed and I did extensive testing to make sure my QoS was working correctly and with excellent performance, and it was!
        And then after 2.4.3 I suddenly have this bad performance problem.
        I agree though, it's possible it's a hypervisor issue or a hardware issue that's crept in somewhere.

        Thanks for your help.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • ?
          A Former User
          last edited by

          So I've done some more testing - can anyone smarter than me tell me if the below shows that my 2 x vCPUs are being pegged here?

          
            PID USERNAME   PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE   C   TIME    WCPU COMMAND
             11 root       155 ki31     0K    32K CPU1    1 291.7H  55.16% [idle{idle: cpu1}]
             11 root       155 ki31     0K    32K RUN     0 290.1H  50.37% [idle{idle: cpu0}]
             12 root       -92    -     0K   400K WAIT    0 213:36  48.55% [intr{irq261: virtio_pci2}]
             12 root       -92    -     0K   400K WAIT    1 148:00  43.18% [intr{irq264: virtio_pci3}]
          
          

          That's running a 100Mb/s iperf that only gets ~50-70Mb/s with FAIRQ turned on.

          With it off:

          
            PID USERNAME   PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE   C   TIME    WCPU COMMAND
             11 root       155 ki31     0K    32K CPU1    1 291.7H  91.36% [idle{idle: cpu1}]
             11 root       155 ki31     0K    32K RUN     0 290.1H  87.53% [idle{idle: cpu0}]
             12 root       -92    -     0K   400K WAIT    0 215:07  11.89% [intr{irq261: virtio_pci2}]
             12 root       -92    -     0K   400K WAIT    1 149:20   8.10% [intr{irq264: virtio_pci3}]
          
          

          That to me says that I'm CPU bound in the first example

          Can someone confirm/deny this for me please :)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • KOMK
            KOM
            last edited by

            55 & 50% idle isn't that bad for your dual cores.  Turning on shaping quadruples the CPU load.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • H
              Harvy66
              last edited by

              Depends on the hardware for CPU usage. I do HFSC+Codel+NAT at line rate gigabit half-duplex around 17% cpu. I can't test full-duplex because I don't have the client hardware to test bidirectionally at line rate.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • ?
                A Former User
                last edited by

                Hardware is a Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5250U CPU.  pfSense is one of two VM's on a Proxmox (kvm) host, cpu type is Host.  pfSense is allocated a Gig of memory and using ~25% of that.  PTI is turned off, both in the pfSense guest and the vm host. The only extra packages I use are openvpn-export and Avahi.

                I have allocated it 2 CPUs in Proxmox, so really it's probably getting a single core with Hyperthreading turned on.

                I can see the old pfSense v2.4.2 but is there a way to get the -P1 I was originally using?  I assume if I install 2.4.2 and then do an upgrade I'll go to 2.4.3, not -P1?

                I think I have an old vm backup somewhere, but would be good to reinstall from proper image.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • KOMK
                  KOM
                  last edited by

                  I'm not aware of a way to pull down individual patches for their general releases.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ?
                    A Former User
                    last edited by

                    OK so I finally got the time this weekend with the kids asleep to install pfSense 2.4.2 (I can't find a way to load -P1 but it doesn't matter)

                    And with the same config/QoS config, I get the following results (repeatable every time)

                    pfSense 2.4.2 - Speedtest 92Mb/s Down, 18Mb/s Up
                    pfsense 2.4.3 - Speedtest 49Mb/s Down, 18Mb/s Up

                    Both of those are with the same FAIRQ configuration.

                    So there appears to be some sort of performance regression between 2.4.2 and 2.4.3.  What can I do to diagnose this further?  I'd log a ticket on Redmine but I can't actually point to a bug and "It's different between versions" isn't something any sane develop can work with.

                    Does anyone have any suggestions for how to debug this further so can we can bisect it to a FreeBSD or pfSense patch?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • KOMK
                      KOM
                      last edited by

                      I'd log a ticket on Redmine but I can't actually point to a bug and "It's different between versions" isn't something any sane develop can work with.

                      I would do exactly that, just as long as you can faithfully reproduce the condition.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • ?
                        A Former User
                        last edited by

                        Thanks KOM, I have created a ticket here.
                        I fully expect to get shouted at though :)

                        Thanks for your help.

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