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

Pfsense 2.2 - Overwhelmed by large package load

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.2 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
12 Posts 3 Posters 3.0k 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.
  • I Offline
    itsme01
    last edited by Dec 8, 2014, 1:58 PM

    I am using pfsense as a firewall for a network of systems which I use to run masscan against my company's internet facing infrastructure (really!). I run masscan with a rate of 1500 packages/second. With pfsense 2.1 I had no problems at all and everything worked fine. Since I updated to 2.2 (even with today's release Dec-8,14) everything freezes up after about 5 seconds, the GUI is non responsive and all other clients loose their connection to the internet when I run the masscan. Also the results I get are not consistent. As soon as I stop the scan everything goes back to normal.
    I don't see anything in the logs…

    Anybody else seeing such behaviour?

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • E Offline
      eri--
      last edited by Dec 8, 2014, 5:24 PM

      Probably you are reaching state table limits.
      Can you see the load on the system and increase the state table limit?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • I Offline
        itsme01
        last edited by Dec 9, 2014, 12:57 PM

        Hi ermal

        The state table size is set to 1'000'000. In 2.1 we reached about 40-45% doing the same scans. I cannot check the state table while the scans are running as the system is not reachable. But as soon as I stop the scan everything works again and the state table is not full (which it should be if it is a state table problem as the state table would not empty immediately when I stop the scan).

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • E Offline
          eri--
          last edited by Dec 9, 2014, 6:22 PM

          Probably you need to tune the interfaces.
          Either add interrupt moderation or other recommandations for FreeBSD.
          You did not notice this in previous versions because you could not even forward that much traffic concurrently.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • I Offline
            itsme01
            last edited by Dec 10, 2014, 1:57 PM

            Thanks ermal. Interrupt moderation is enabled by default. I played around with the settings and nothing changes. I also tried a lot of other interface tuning parameters, but nothing really changes the problem.

            But back to the history of this problem: I have pfsense 2.1 and can produce reproducable results with masscan running at 1500 packets per second. During the scan, I can access the web GUI and make an SSH connection to my pfsense. All works fine. On the same hardware I update to pfsense 2.2. If I leave the masscan settings as they are, then my pfsense becomes unresponsive (WebGUI and SSH). I have played with the masscan settings and can only have a stable system with 150 packets per second.

            There has to be a strange setting in 2.2 which is making the system react so differently…

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C Offline
              cmb
              last edited by Dec 11, 2014, 1:38 AM Dec 11, 2014, 1:25 AM

              What hardware are you running?

              It's not a general problem, I run nmap scans racking up way more than 1500 connections/sec routinely for testing purposes. Just tried massscan and things do degrade a little if you really hammer a system (of course), but web interface still works, SSH still fine.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • I Offline
                itsme01
                last edited by Dec 11, 2014, 7:34 AM

                Hi cmb

                I am running pfsense on an APU board (http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm) with 4GB RAM and an mSATA SSD. Could it be a bug in the Realtek Interface driver?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • C Offline
                  cmb
                  last edited by Dec 11, 2014, 11:39 PM

                  It might be, I'll try to replicate on an APU. I was testing with a more powerful system than that and one with much better NICs.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • I Offline
                    itsme01
                    last edited by Dec 17, 2014, 7:30 AM

                    Hi cmb

                    Any update on your tests on an APU board?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C Offline
                      cmb
                      last edited by Dec 17, 2014, 6:28 PM

                      Yes I was able to replicate the issue, there and elsewhere afterwards. It should have been fixed yesterday, if you can try today's snapshot or newer I don't think you'll see that anymore.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • I Offline
                        itsme01
                        last edited by Dec 19, 2014, 7:47 AM

                        SOLVED!!! Thanks a lot. Works perfectly again with 1500pps. Just out of curiosity: what was the problem resp. what did you fix?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • C Offline
                          cmb
                          last edited by Dec 19, 2014, 6:36 PM

                          Thanks for the confirmation. Some work (funded by Netgate) was done on the hash alg in part of pf which got merged into FreeBSD (newer than 10.1), and the patch set we included was wrong, only hashing a quarter of the bytes. It's a nice little performance improvement (when it's included correctly). In circumstances like the one you described where you didn't have significantly more CPU than necessary for the job at hand, that slowed things down dramatically.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          1 out of 12
                          • First post
                            1/12
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                            This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                            consent.not_received