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

    XG-7100 10 gbe throughput issue

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Official Netgate® Hardware
    16 Posts 3 Posters 2.3k 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.
    • johnpozJ
      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
      last edited by

      Your testing too pfsense? Test THRU pfsense..

      iperfclient -- pfsense -- iperfserver

      An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
      If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
      Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
      SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DerelictD
        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
        last edited by

        For testing throughput you should be testing through the firewall, not with one end on the firewall. Not that I think that's exactly why you are seeing what you are seeing, but that methodology is wrong.

        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • johnpozJ
          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
          last edited by

          ^exactly... When he said all he saw was iperf using up cpu at the top of his list when you asked him to check top when running iperf I take it that he is testing to pfsense..

          An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
          If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
          Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
          SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P
            pinemin
            last edited by

            Let me provide some context. I have 2 machines with 10 Gbe networking capability through sfp+. A TrueNAS Server and the Netgate XG 7100. In about 3 weeks, I will add a virtualization server that also has 10 Gbe sfp+. I am just in the process of setting up the systems for a small business with high throughput needs. The "in rack" networking is at 10 Gbe while for now all the clients are 1 Gbe. What I wanted to test was the throughput within the rack. Since I didn't have another iperf3 server capable of 10 Gbe I used the pfsense box. The other alternative would be to test the throughput to multiple 1 Gbe clients but I don't have that option right now either. Hence the test to the pfsense box. Help me out here but my thought was that if I can't get 10 Gbe (or close) to the pfsense, its unlikely that I will get it through the pfsense to the virtualization server when I set it up in a month's time.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DerelictD
              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
              last edited by Derelict

              Right now we don't know that it's not the switch. Have you tried directly connecting them?

              Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
              A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
              DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
              Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • P
                pinemin
                last edited by

                Agreed. I am working on ruling that out. What I plan to do is attach the TrueNAS directly to the XG 7100 and run the same test to rule out a switch problem but the pfsense will still be the iperf3 server.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • DerelictD
                  Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                  last edited by

                  I have a couple units here. It'll take me a bit to get the test set up. It's going to be iperf3 between an XG-2758 and XG-7100. If anything is the limiting factor there it should be the 2758.

                  Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                  A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                  DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                  Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • P
                    pinemin
                    last edited by

                    That would be great. Thank you.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • P
                      pinemin
                      last edited by

                      Today, I attached the TrueNAS directly to the XG 7100 with a DAC sfp+ cable and ran an iperf3 test. The transfer rate was 2.2 Gbps. Twice what is was with the switch between them but still way below what I would have expected. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • P
                        pinemin
                        last edited by

                        Clarification on the immediately prior post. On a direct connection of the TrueNAS to the XG 7100, I get a transfer rate of 2.2 Gbps if the XG 7100 is the client. It is ~ 1 Gbps if the XG 7100 is the server. That seems to me to rule out the Switch as the bottleneck. I got exactly the same rates with and without the switch in the path.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DerelictD
                          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                          last edited by

                          I was seeing the same sort of thing but it looked like it was the iperf3 process on the firewall itself becoming CPU bound.

                          That brings us back around to testing through the firewall not to/from the firewall.

                          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • P
                            pinemin
                            last edited by

                            Thanks for that Derelict. I guess I will just have to wait until the new server arrives and see what happens then. Appreciate your help.

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