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

    gigabit WAN and capable pfSense hardware

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Hardware
    14 Posts 3 Posters 2.9k 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.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      It will.

      Assuming that's not a PPPoE connection. If it is then it still might.

      Steve

      D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        digity @stephenw10
        last edited by

        @stephenw10 said in gigabit WAN and capable pfSense hardware:

        It will.

        Assuming that's not a PPPoE connection. If it is then it still might.

        Steve

        Yes, it's PPPoE. Can you elaborate why it might not?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          Because PPPoE connections in FreeBSD (and hence pfSense) can only use a single thread/core.

          Single thread performance on that CPU is pretty good though.

          See: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/96129/gigabit-pppoe-and-intel-drivers

          Steve

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            digity
            last edited by

            ya, that's one of the threads that confused me and lead me to post my own thread. My NICs are showing up as em0 and em1 so I guess that means they're not using igb drivers which is a start. Guess I'll have to just test and see when CenturyLink installs it. I'll post my results here

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stephenw10S
              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
              last edited by

              I think there is some confusion here. The igb drivers are where this is most often seen because they support multiple queues per NIC so can use CPU cores far better. That means the PPPoE throughput can be far lower than the direct throughput.
              Other drivers such as em or re do not so the effect is less pronounced but the underlying cause is still there.

              At least that's how I understand it. 😉

              Steve

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                I setup a quick test here using another pfSense box as a PPPoE server. So all Gigabit but also all local.
                It's not a great test because I'm running iperf3 on the box under test. But since it uses only one core for PPPoE it should have plenty left for that.

                pppoe0: flags=88d1<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1492
                	inet 10.220.30.0 --> 10.220.30.129 netmask 0xffffffff 
                	inet6 fe80::290:7fff:fe9d:b635%pppoe0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x14 
                	nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
                

                Without any tuning:

                [2.4.5-DEVELOPMENT][admin@xtm800.stevew.lan]/root: iperf3 -c 10.220.30.129
                Connecting to host 10.220.30.129, port 5201
                [  5] local 10.220.30.0 port 18962 connected to 10.220.30.129 port 5201
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
                [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   109 MBytes   918 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   106 MBytes   891 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   109 MBytes   910 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   108 MBytes   903 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   108 MBytes   904 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   108 MBytes   904 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   105 MBytes   885 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                [  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   110 MBytes   919 Mbits/sec    0    288 KBytes       
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
                [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.06 GBytes   909 Mbits/sec    0             sender
                [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.06 GBytes   909 Mbits/sec                  receiver
                
                iperf Done.
                [2.4.5-DEVELOPMENT][admin@xtm800.stevew.lan]/root: iperf3 -c 10.220.30.129 -R
                Connecting to host 10.220.30.129, port 5201
                Reverse mode, remote host 10.220.30.129 is sending
                [  5] local 10.220.30.0 port 31734 connected to 10.220.30.129 port 5201
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
                [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec  87.9 MBytes   737 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec  87.3 MBytes   732 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec  89.7 MBytes   753 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec  87.2 MBytes   732 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec  88.1 MBytes   739 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   5.00-6.00   sec  86.8 MBytes   728 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   6.00-7.00   sec  87.7 MBytes   736 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   7.00-8.00   sec  87.8 MBytes   736 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   8.00-9.00   sec  86.6 MBytes   726 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   9.00-10.00  sec  88.9 MBytes   746 Mbits/sec                  
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
                [  5]   0.00-10.01  sec   878 MBytes   736 Mbits/sec  3774             sender
                [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec   878 MBytes   737 Mbits/sec                  receiver
                
                iperf Done.
                

                Setting net.isr.dispatch to deferred:

                [2.4.5-DEVELOPMENT][admin@xtm800.stevew.lan]/root: sysctl net.isr.dispatch=deferred
                net.isr.dispatch: direct -> deferred
                [2.4.5-DEVELOPMENT][admin@xtm800.stevew.lan]/root: iperf3 -c 10.220.30.129 
                Connecting to host 10.220.30.129, port 5201
                [  5] local 10.220.30.0 port 59188 connected to 10.220.30.129 port 5201
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
                [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                [  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    160 KBytes       
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
                [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0             sender
                [  5]   0.00-10.04  sec  1.09 GBytes   932 Mbits/sec                  receiver
                
                iperf Done.
                [2.4.5-DEVELOPMENT][admin@xtm800.stevew.lan]/root: iperf3 -c 10.220.30.129 -R
                Connecting to host 10.220.30.129, port 5201
                Reverse mode, remote host 10.220.30.129 is sending
                [  5] local 10.220.30.0 port 5846 connected to 10.220.30.129 port 5201
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
                [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                [  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
                [  5]   0.00-10.12  sec  1.09 GBytes   926 Mbits/sec    0             sender
                [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   937 Mbits/sec                  receiver
                
                iperf Done.
                

                That's using an E3-1225 v2 with em NICs.

                Interestingly the server end barely breaks a sweat when running that test.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • D
                  digity
                  last edited by

                  What's the make and model of the sender and receiver NICs?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    They are Intel NICs using the em driver as yours are.

                    em9@pci0:14:0:0:	class=0x020000 card=0x00008086 chip=0x10d38086 rev=0x00 hdr=0x00
                        vendor     = 'Intel Corporation'
                        device     = '82574L Gigabit Network Connection'
                        class      = network
                        subclass   = ethernet
                    

                    Steve

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • D
                      digity
                      last edited by

                      Well, CenturyLink's gigabit service was installed and although I'm having massive latency issues when connecting CenturyLink's ONT to my pfSense build, I did get one good complete speed test in at 970 Mbps down (I forgot the up speed). This was without any tuning (I didn't change net.isr.dispatch to deferred). The CenturyLink tech's speed tests and my speed tests with their router/gateway device in place (Zyxel C3000Z) was/is roughly up to 930 Mbps up and down, so I'm not sure how much I can trust that 970 Mbps test. Anyways, I'll troubleshoot the pfSense box latency issues again later (I'll just use the Zyxel C3000Z for now).

                      Thanks everyone for your help on this!

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stephenw10S
                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                        last edited by

                        Yes, 970Mbps seems more than is possible!
                        Still it's encouraging. ☺

                        Steve

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

                          970 is a bit overly optimistic ;) I think hehehehe

                          They need to do some works on their maths maybe ;)

                          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
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.