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

    Trying to narrow down the culprit

    General pfSense Questions
    2
    11
    976
    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.
    • B
      bhjitsense
      last edited by bhjitsense

      I'm having some bandwidth issues and I'm trying to determine if it the router or the switch...or something else. I have a 1Gbs connection. At the demarc it's full throttle, and at the LAN I get the expected speed when I plug a laptop into the LAN interface. But when I test through the switch, it's <300Mbps. I'm here to see if my setup is correct.

      I have a ROAS setup with the SG-3100 and a Cisco 3560. I have a 1Gb connection on my WAN. (mvneta2). I have several VLANs off the (mvneta0) OPT1 interface. This is trunked to the switch. Everything is routed fine, but the throughput is bunk. I'm trying to see if I should create the VLANs on mvneta1 instead, or if I possibly have something missconfigured. I can't seem to find anything wrong on the switch that would cause something like this.

      I'm getting stumped when trying to trunk 6 VLANs to mvneta1 (LAN1). The Port VID doesn't seem to make sense to me.

      Edit: Also I noticed that the 3100's interfaces (mvnetaX) are not listed as interfaces with VLAN hardware support...?

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

        So do you get the expected throughput on a non-tagged client connected to the OPT1 port directly?

        Choosing to use mvneta1 or 0 shouldn't make any difference to throughput. It just has to go through the on-board switch also if you use mvneta1.

        The PVID in the switch config determines what tag is given to untagged traffic arriving on that port. So for a trunk port carrying only tagged traffic it doesn't make any difference. You should set something there though to avoid any accidental untagged traffic being put onto a VLAN you care about.

        The omission of mvneta(4) from that list in the book is simply that it hasn't been updated.

        Steve

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • B
          bhjitsense
          last edited by

          I do get the expected throughput on an untagged port. But not when the traffic is tagged. It's 1/3 the speed when tagged.

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

            So you have tested an untagged client on mvneta0?

            That would be a different interface in pfSense so potentially could have different rules applied, maybe traffic shaping.

            Other than that it looks like some issue in your switch. Do you have another switch your can test there?

            Steve

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • B
              bhjitsense
              last edited by bhjitsense

              First I noticed it doing a speed test with fast.com. I got 1 Gb a the demarcation and when I plugged a laptop directly into the OPT1(mvneta0) port (my LAN connection). I have several VLANS created, and when I throw the switch in the mix, the speed drops tremendously. It doesn't seem to be affected when I use native vlan 1 however. I have a pretty straight forward setup on the switch and have been in other Cisco forums to troubleshoot the switch. It's an older 3560 but it doesn't seem to be the issue - at least from a configuration standpoint.

              When I run iperf locally, I get about the same speed <400Mbps.

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

                iperf between where and where?

                Try setting a VLAN on the client directly an connecting it to the 3100 port. That will rule out the switch, or indicate it's is the switch.

                Steve

                B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • B
                  bhjitsense @stephenw10
                  last edited by bhjitsense

                  @stephenw10

                  I ran iperf on my laptop and on pfsense. Although it was a bit of a struggle - it seems buggy within pfSense. I had my laptop in the Cisco switch's untagged VLAN. Throughput was fine. When I move that same switch port to a tagged VLAN, speed dropped.

                  Try setting a VLAN on what client?

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

                    You might try using the iperf3 CLI client on pfSense instead:
                    pkg install iperf3
                    But testing from the firewall is not a good test generally speaking.

                    You can set a VLAN on the client directly to remove the switch entirely and still use the vlan interface in pfSense to test just that. How easy it is to do that does depend on what OS and driver your client is using though.

                    Steve

                    B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • B
                      bhjitsense @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10
                      Thanks for the advice. If you know of any resources to set a vlan tag on a client, please point me in that direction. In any case, I decided to replace the switch. We'll see if this resolves the problem.

                      But just to clarify, using the OPT1 (mvneta0) port as my LAN (trunk) port shouldn't be an issue, correct?

                      Edit: Using iperf3 on pfSense fixed the errors I was getting. Thanks!

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

                        Ah, nice. What was the cause for reference?

                        Steve

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B
                          bhjitsense
                          last edited by

                          Still not sure. I'll be bringing the new switch online later this week.

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