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

SG-1100 Throughput Test

Official NetgateĀ® Hardware
8
51
24.1k
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.
  • H
    hbauer
    last edited by hbauer Jan 29, 2019, 5:25 PM Jan 29, 2019, 5:22 PM

    Hi,

    if have done a short test with iperf3 on a SG1100. With a direct connection to the testserver I get this results

    [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   112 MBytes   940 Mbits/sec    8    539 KBytes       
    [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec    0    543 KBytes       
    [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   936 Mbits/sec    0    680 KBytes       
    [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   111 MBytes   928 Mbits/sec    0    792 KBytes       
    [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec    0    894 KBytes       
    [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec    0    984 KBytes       
    [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   110 MBytes   926 Mbits/sec    0   1.04 MBytes       
    [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec    0   1.12 MBytes       
    [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   931 Mbits/sec    0   1.19 MBytes       
    [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   110 MBytes   927 Mbits/sec    0   1.26 MBytes       
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
    [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.08 GBytes   931 Mbits/sec    8             sender
    [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.08 GBytes   927 Mbits/sec                  receiver
    
    

    When running the same test with a sg1100 between I get this.

    [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  83.5 MBytes   700 Mbits/sec    7    403 KBytes       
    [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  84.6 MBytes   710 Mbits/sec    0    544 KBytes       
    [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  83.3 MBytes   699 Mbits/sec    3    474 KBytes       
    [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  86.1 MBytes   722 Mbits/sec    0    598 KBytes       
    [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  85.2 MBytes   715 Mbits/sec    3    520 KBytes       
    [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  83.7 MBytes   702 Mbits/sec    0    632 KBytes       
    [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  85.8 MBytes   720 Mbits/sec   48    567 KBytes       
    [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  85.5 MBytes   717 Mbits/sec    3    499 KBytes       
    [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  82.3 MBytes   690 Mbits/sec    0    614 KBytes       
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
    [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   844 MBytes   708 Mbits/sec  100             sender
    [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   840 MBytes   705 Mbits/sec                  receiver
    

    No optimation or configuration changes. plain vanilla pfsense after initial setup.

    I dont want to complain. Is this the expected performance, is there any tuning possible or is there an error in my tests?

    Regards
    Hagen

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • J
      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
      last edited by Jan 29, 2019, 7:05 PM

      So these are just 2 devices connected to the sg1100 switch, or they are being routed and natted?

      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 2.7.2, 24.11

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • H
        hbauer
        last edited by Jan 29, 2019, 8:27 PM

        Test 1 is: client -> gigabitswitch -> server
        Test 2 is: client -> sg1100 - gigabitswitch - server

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
          last edited by johnpoz Jan 29, 2019, 8:39 PM Jan 29, 2019, 8:29 PM

          Yeah I get you have the sg1100 in the middle... So your routing this, ie client on your lan and server on the wan.. Or server on the lan and client on the wan and you did a port forward. Or you have client and server connected to the sg1100 switch ports and they are both on lan.

          Is client on lan and server on opt and you setup vlans on opt?

          So you have added another cable in the mix as well with client to sg1100 and then sg1100 to switch, and then server on switch. Did you validate cable good, etc.

          Your questions is GREAT and yeah you would expect in the 900's I would hope even when natting and routing.. But you need to be a bit more specific on your testing connection method.

          Says right on the sg1100 page
          "For users seeking an excellent firewall with up to 1 Gbps throughput"

          Up to 1 Gbps to me would mean natting and routing at least close to 900mbps.. Not the 700 your seeing... So lets understand exactly how your doing the test.

          And also going to yell for @Derelict since he has a huge lab and would think he has a sg1100 to play with ;) to duplicate your testing of its throughput.

          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 2.7.2, 24.11

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • H
            hbauer
            last edited by hbauer Jan 29, 2019, 9:36 PM Jan 29, 2019, 9:34 PM

            @johnpoz said in SG-1100 Throughput Test:

            So you have added another cable in the mix

            autsch. embarrassing and I will not lie to you. The new cable was a cat5.

            If I change it to a cat6 I get.

            [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   105 MBytes   884 Mbits/sec    1    556 KBytes       
            [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   105 MBytes   884 Mbits/sec    0    687 KBytes       
            [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   106 MBytes   887 Mbits/sec    0    796 KBytes       
            [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   100 MBytes   840 Mbits/sec    6    527 KBytes       
            [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   105 MBytes   883 Mbits/sec    0    663 KBytes       
            [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   106 MBytes   886 Mbits/sec    0    778 KBytes       
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
            [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.01 GBytes   868 Mbits/sec   28             sender
            [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.01 GBytes   866 Mbits/sec                  receiver
            
            

            The flow is

            Client -> lan port - SG1100 - wan port -> gigabit switch -> server

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • D
              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
              last edited by Jan 29, 2019, 11:05 PM

              What are the exact iperf commands you are running?

              High 800s is pretty respectable for single-stream ARM, IMHO.

              I didn't get that notification. Wonder if it's case-sensitive @Johnpoz.

              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
              • J
                johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                last edited by Jan 30, 2019, 12:33 AM

                Odd you didn't get the notification. But cat 5 is more than capable of doing gig.. Maybe just something wrong with that cable. But I would say that mid 800's is pretty respectable.

                Also you still haven't stated how you have it all connected.. I assume server or client is on wan, and other side is on the lan. But there are multiple ways this could all be connected. Which you really need to clarify.

                The actual valid test would be server on wan, and client on lan. While doing nat - which is the typical setup.

                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 2.7.2, 24.11

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • D
                  Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                  last edited by Jan 30, 2019, 1:10 AM

                  We have seen crappy little "gigabit" switches that couldn't pass gig-e rates. Pull the switch and 942Mb.

                  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
                  • J
                    johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                    last edited by Jan 30, 2019, 1:27 AM

                    but he said when he was testing with just his switch he was seeing 940.

                    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 2.7.2, 24.11

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • H
                      hbauer
                      last edited by Jan 30, 2019, 4:40 AM

                      Thank you for the fast feedback.

                      To further simplify the test setup I put the "Server" into the same vlan as the client. Since this was the same in both test it should not matter but anyway.

                      Now I have

                      • Server: is the same on both test - running iperf3 -s
                      • Cable Server -> Switch - is the same on both test
                      • Switch: 1GB - is the same on both test
                      • Cable Switch -> [Client | SG1100] - is the same on both tests
                      • SG1100 - Standard installation. no additional rules / nat /...
                      • Cable SG100 -> Client: Cat 6
                      • Client Command : iperf3 -c ip.address.server

                      Testsetup

                      Test 1 is: client -> gigabitswitch -> server
                      Test 2 is: client -> LANPORT sg1100 WANPORT - gigabitswitch - server

                      The only difference I can see between the two test is the fact that in test 2 the sg1100 plus one cable is added to the flow between client and gigabit switch.

                      Test summary: The SG1100 "adds" 50MBits/sec to the result.

                      As i said. It is not that I am unhappy. I just would like to confirm that this is "expected" or if there are some additional tuning possible

                      Result test 1

                      Connecting to host "server ip", port 5201
                      [  4] local "client-ip" port 40144 connected to "server-ip" port 5201
                      [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
                      [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   112 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec    0    409 KBytes       
                      [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec    0    430 KBytes       
                      [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   939 Mbits/sec    0    604 KBytes       
                      [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   111 MBytes   933 Mbits/sec    0    604 KBytes       
                      [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   111 MBytes   932 Mbits/sec   37    428 KBytes       
                      [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   108 MBytes   909 Mbits/sec    0    501 KBytes       
                      [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   109 MBytes   915 Mbits/sec   37    387 KBytes       
                      [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   933 Mbits/sec    0    406 KBytes       
                      [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   110 MBytes   927 Mbits/sec    0    426 KBytes       
                      [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   110 MBytes   921 Mbits/sec  111    334 KBytes       
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
                      [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.08 GBytes   928 Mbits/sec  185             sender
                      [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.08 GBytes   925 Mbits/sec                  receiver
                      

                      Result test 2

                      Connecting to host "server-ip", port 5201
                      [  4] local "client ip" port 37190 connected to "server-ip" port 5201
                      [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
                      [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   100 MBytes   840 Mbits/sec   25    549 KBytes       
                      [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   105 MBytes   879 Mbits/sec    0    682 KBytes       
                      [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   105 MBytes   878 Mbits/sec    0    789 KBytes       
                      [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   105 MBytes   881 Mbits/sec    2    667 KBytes       
                      [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   105 MBytes   882 Mbits/sec    0    776 KBytes       
                      [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   105 MBytes   883 Mbits/sec    5    655 KBytes       
                      [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   105 MBytes   883 Mbits/sec    0    766 KBytes       
                      [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   105 MBytes   884 Mbits/sec    9    639 KBytes       
                      [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   102 MBytes   860 Mbits/sec    0    752 KBytes       
                      [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   105 MBytes   880 Mbits/sec    6    625 KBytes       
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
                      [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.02 GBytes   875 Mbits/sec   47             sender
                      [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.02 GBytes   872 Mbits/sec                  receiver
                      
                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D
                        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                        last edited by Jan 30, 2019, 4:56 AM

                        Yeah.

                        The SG-1100 is designed with a single gigabit link to a switch chip. That switch chip breaks out to WAN, LAN, and OPT. Everyone wanted pfSense on an espresso.bin. This is how the espresso.bin is designed.

                        So it is essentially a router on a stick.

                        880Mbit/sec is pretty impressive in that context.

                        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)

                        H 1 Reply Last reply Jan 30, 2019, 6:58 AM Reply Quote 0
                        • H
                          hbauer @Derelict
                          last edited by hbauer Jan 30, 2019, 7:11 AM Jan 30, 2019, 6:58 AM

                          @derelict thank you. It may look so but I really dont want to water down our wine. I am really impressed.

                          I should have said "only adds 50MBits/sec". This device will serve every internet connection you can normally buy for decent money in Germany.

                          I believe from a price value point this is excellent given the fact that the powerful pfSense capabilities are within this small little device

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • J
                            JInx-IT
                            last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 2:36 PM

                            I can't get more than 250 Mbps with a Vanilla install. Which version of pfSense are you running? Mine is 2.4.4

                            H 1 Reply Last reply Apr 10, 2019, 4:32 PM Reply Quote 0
                            • H
                              hbauer @JInx-IT
                              last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 4:32 PM

                              @JInx-IT plain vanilla pfsense latest version that was installed out of the box. 2.4.4-p2

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • J
                                JInx-IT
                                last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 5:49 PM

                                You are correct. I have, however, heard that people running 2.3.* are getting gigabit speeds. I was wondering if it was a 2.4.* issue that was throttling me to around 250 Mpbs. If other people are getting Gigabit, or close, speeds in 2.4.*, I'd like to know what they are running and how it's configured. My gut says I have something misconfigured, but I don't have a clue what it would be. I was hoping I could compare between my setup and another person's who was getting at least closer to Gigabit speeds, with the same hardware.

                                H 1 Reply Last reply Apr 10, 2019, 5:51 PM Reply Quote 0
                                • H
                                  hbauer @JInx-IT
                                  last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 5:51 PM

                                  @JInx-IT and what are your results with 2.4.4-p2 and what is your test environment?

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D
                                    Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                    last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 5:53 PM

                                    Not sure what you're talking about since the SG-1100 was never supported by anything older than pfSense 2.4.4-p1.

                                    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
                                    • J
                                      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                                      last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 5:53 PM

                                      Maybe he is confusing the SG-1100, with the 1000?

                                      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 2.7.2, 24.11

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • J
                                        JInx-IT
                                        last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 5:58 PM

                                        I've read posts from people claiming to be running an old Dell desktop with a couple of gigabit cards, running pfSense 2.3.*, getting in the high 990 Mbps. I can plug my laptop straight into the modem and get the same. High 990 Mbps, no problem. When I put the Netgate SG-1100 between my laptop and the modem, my speeds go down to 250 Mbps or lower.

                                        H 1 Reply Last reply Apr 10, 2019, 6:01 PM Reply Quote 0
                                        • H
                                          hbauer @JInx-IT
                                          last edited by Apr 10, 2019, 6:01 PM

                                          @JInx-IT you installed 2.3 on a sg -1100?

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