CPU Usage when network used

stephenw10

Mmm, definitely worth trying that.

qwaven

Hi all,

Thanks for the info.

So I've tried running more streams at once both with -P option as well as like this page suggests.

https://fasterdata.es.net/performance-testing/network-troubleshooting-tools/iperf/multi-stream-iperf3/

Transfers appear to average out between the 3 connections to be about 3G.
Top looks like this which I believe is about the same also.

last pid: 31030; load averages: 1.32, 0.40, 0.17 up 0+23:57:53 21:15:20
370 processes: 18 running, 244 sleeping, 108 waiting
CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.8% system, 13.2% interrupt, 86.0% idle
Mem: 28M Active, 254M Inact, 450M Wired, 41M Buf, 15G Free
Swap: 3979M Total, 3979M Free

PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 12 root -72 - 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 11 root 155 ki31 12 root -72 - 12 root -92 - 12 root -92 - 0 root -92 - 12 root -92 - 12 root -72 - 12 root -92 - 12 root -72 - 12 root -92 - 12 root -92 - 12 root -92 - 12 root -92 - 0 root -92 - 0 root -92 - 0 root -92 - 32 root -16 - 99552 root 0 root -92 - 12 root -72 - 13846 unbound 12 root -92 - 12 root -60 - 6575 root RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
0K 256K CPU8 8 23.9H 99.79% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU1 1 23.9H 99.70% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU14 14 23.9H 97.54% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU9 9 23.9H 97.40% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU6 6 24.0H 96.44% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU2 2 24.0H 94.87% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU5 5 23.9H 93.80% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU15 15 23.9H 93.47% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU3 3 24.0H 90.80% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU11 11 23.9H 87.85% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K RUN 7 23.9H 86.47% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU10 10 23.9H 85.51% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K RUN 12 23.9H 78.32% [idle{idle: cp
0K 1744K WAIT 12 0:20 76.09% [intr{swi1: ne
0K 256K CPU4 4 23.9H 74.35% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K CPU13 13 23.9H 67.51% [idle{idle: cp
0K 256K RUN 0 23.9H 63.12% [idle{idle: cp
0K 1744K WAIT 6 0:15 32.29% [intr{swi1: ne
0K 1744K WAIT 0 0:09 25.01% [intr{irq307:
0K 1744K WAIT 4 0:08 15.51% [intr{irq329:
0K 1552K - 14 0:03 14.85% [kernel{ix3:q0
0K 1744K WAIT 0 0:05 11.83% [intr{irq325:
0K 1744K WAIT 11 0:20 11.04% [intr{swi1: ne
0K 1744K CPU4 4 0:08 10.11% [intr{irq311:
0K 1744K WAIT 9 0:15 6.29% [intr{swi1: ne
0K 1744K WAIT 5 0:08 4.57% [intr{irq312:
0K 1744K WAIT 2 0:07 2.86% [intr{irq327:
0K 1744K WAIT 2 0:05 1.64% [intr{irq309:
0K 1744K WAIT 5 0:05 1.62% [intr{irq330:
0K 1552K - 10 0:00 0.86% [kernel{ix1:q0
0K 1552K - 3 0:00 0.76% [kernel{ix1:q4
0K 1552K - 8 0:03 0.37% [kernel{ix3:q5
0K 16K - 8 0:35 0.31% [rand_harvestq
20 0 9860K 5824K CPU7 7 0:00 0.12% top -aSH
0K 1552K - 14 0:00 0.09% [kernel{ix1:q2
0K 1744K WAIT 9 1:23 0.08% [intr{swi1: ne
20 0 213M 157M kqread 9 0:00 0.08% /usr/local/sbi
0K 1744K WAIT 1 1:09 0.06% [intr{irq308:
0K 1744K WAIT 11 0:43 0.04% [intr{swi4: cl
20 0 50912K 33644K nanslp 3 0:25 0.03% /usr/local/bin

Also to clarify I am not using the Chelsio card at all. I have been using the built in ports on the board since I switch to the 16 core system. I believe they are intel based.

I guess what I'm still having trouble understanding is why PF is not utilizing all the hardware? Ie all my cpu cores. I get it appears that PF is not very efficient at pushing higher volumes of data but surely it should at least give it its best effort by using the cores even if inefficiently. I don't think any of my cores reach 100% utilization and most don't even look operational.

Did try a few -M flags on iperf3 also but nothing seemed to show much difference except when using fairly high values.

Cheers!

stephenw10

So try changing:

hw.ix.rxd: 2048
hw.ix.txd: 2048
hw.ix.flow_control: 3

You might need to set the individual flowcontrol values:

dev.ix.0.fc: 3

I'd start out by doubling the descriptor values. Set the flowcontrol to 0 and check that in ifconfig.

Steve

tman222

Thanks for the update. Beyond what @stephenw10 already suggested, you might also consider changing (increasing) the processing limits on the ix interfaces using the following tunables:

dev.ix.Y.tx_processing_limit
dev.ix.Y.rx_processing_limit

where Y = 0.....N and N is the number of ix interfaces in your system minus 1. Setting the rx and tx processing limit to -1 essentially removes the limit (i.e. makes it unlimited).

However, even with updated tunables, it appears challenging to make up almost 6.5 Gbit/s or throughput (though I could be wrong). I have a couple more questions:

What are specs of the machines on either side that you are using for testing? If you put them both on the same subnet, are they able to talk at 10 Gbit/s to each other?
Are you running any other add-on packages on pfSense currently or is this a barebones install?

Hope this helps.

qwaven

I've tried setting the hw.ix.rxd values as well as the flow control but I'm not seeing the values change even after a reboot. In PFSense I created the values and put 4096.

sysctl hw.ix.rxd
hw.ix.rxd: 2048

Same with this, its set to 0.

sysctl hw.ix.flow_control
hw.ix.flow_control: 3

Am I doing this wrong?

The last one appears to already be 0.

sysctl dev.ix.0.fc
dev.ix.0.fc: 0

Where should these be set? Are these also via sysctl?

dev.ix.Y.tx_processing_limit
dev.ix.Y.rx_processing_limit

The destination is a NAS and the source is a linux distro on a Z800 workstation. Yes when I tried them on the same vlan they reached 10G instantly. They will also reach it network-to-network when PF is disabled.
Not much running on PFSense right now. Barely any firewall rules, mostly only configured basic connectivity, dns, pppoe/nat, and 1 VPN, most of this is not used for the reaching each network (all internal)

Thanks all for the help.
Cheers!

FYI:

qwaven

Any thoughts on the above? Hoping to make sure I've at least done this correctly.

Cheers!

stephenw10

You probably need to add them as loader variables rather than system tunables as shown here:
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/hardware/tuning-and-troubleshooting-network-cards.html#adding-to-loader-conf-local

Steve

qwaven

Thanks. I've put this. Does this look correct before I reboot?

#Improve Cache size
hw.ix.rxd: 4096
hw.ix.txd: 4096
#Change processing limit -1 is unlimited
dev.ix.-1.tx_processing_limit
dev.ix.-1.rx_processing_limit

Cheers!

Grimson

@qwaven said in CPU Usage when network used:

Thanks. I've put this. Does this look correct before I reboot?

#Improve Cache size
hw.ix.rxd: 4096
hw.ix.txd: 4096

Nope, read the syntax in the documentation again.

#Change processing limit -1 is unlimited
dev.ix.-1.tx_processing_limit
dev.ix.-1.rx_processing_limit

Also nope, read it again:
@tman222 said in CPU Usage when network used:

dev.ix.Y.tx_processing_limit
dev.ix.Y.rx_processing_limit

where Y = 0.....N and N is the number of ix interfaces in your system minus 1. Setting the rx and tx processing limit to -1 essentially removes the limit (i.e. makes it unlimited).

qwaven

Thanks. Not sure I've seen documentation just going on what was posted earlier. However I've changed to this?

hw.ix.rxd="4096"
hw.ix.txd="4096"

Also I found this, I am not clear what the difference between hw and dev is.
hw.ix.tx_process_limit="-1"
hw.ix.rx_process_limit="-1"

Cheers!

Grimson

@qwaven said in CPU Usage when network used:

Thanks. Not sure I've seen documentation just going on what was posted earlier. However I've changed to this?

hw.ix.rxd="4096"
hw.ix.txd="4096"

Also I found this, I am not clear what the difference between hw and dev is.
hw.ix.tx_process_limit="-1"
hw.ix.rx_process_limit="-1"

Cheers!

Looks better, hw. is global while dev. is per device.

stephenw10

Yeah looks good.
Not sure why but the flow control global setting doesn't seem to work for ixgbe. It needs to be set per dev using the dev.ix.X values. That may apply to the process limits, I've never tested it.

Steve

qwaven

So thanks all for your efforts. I'm pretty much thinking I'm sol here. :)

Rebooted with those settings, confirmed I can see them applied. Tried some tests with iperf3
single stream, -P10, and 3 separate streams on different ports. Nothing has changed, still about 3G speed.

In regards to flow control it looked like it was already set to 0 before so I have not forced anything via loader...etc.

Cheers!

stephenw10

flowcontrol set to 0 in hw.ix or dev.ix.X?

If the link shows as media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-Twinax <full-duplex,rxpause,txpause>) it's still enabled.

Steve

qwaven

Interesting yes it appears to be.

ifconfig | grep media
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-Twinax <full-duplex,rxpause,txpause>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-Twinax <full-duplex,rxpause,txpause>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)

added this into the loader.conf.local but it appears to have had no effect.

dev.ix.0.fc=0
dev.ix.1.fc=0
dv.ix.2.fc=0
dev.ix.3.fc=0

then tried

hw.ix.flow_control="0"

which seems to have worked.

ifconfig | grep media
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-Twinax <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-Twinax <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>)

however after running similar iperf3 tests as before the best I've seen is about this:

[  5]  30.00-30.04  sec  15.6 MBytes  3.11 Gbits/sec

Cheers!

stephenw10

Interesting. The opposite if what I have previously seen. Hmm.

Disappointing it did help. Might have reach the end of the road. At least for low hanging fruit type tweaks.

Steve

qwaven

Yeah appreciate all the help from everyone. Learned a thing or two anyhow. :)
I'll likely blow this install out when I have a bit more time and virtualize it with some other stuff. Go the L3 switch route which seems like that should work.

Cheers!

JeGr

@qwaven were those latest tests you made with MTU 1500 or MTU 9000? Perhaps try again with MTU9000 set on all parts of that network segment? The results strike me some similarity as:

https://calomel.org/network_performance.html

As for other optimizations: you could check the loader.conf and sysctl.conf values setup on
https://calomel.org/freebsd_network_tuning.html
and adjust yours carefully in that direction.

qwaven

Thanks for the info. I have applied some of this "freebsd network tuning" and I seem to have managed to make it slower. :P

May play around with it a little more, will let you know if it amounts to anything.

Cheers!

tman222

Something here still seems off to me that you're hitting this 3Gbit/s limit and can't get further. I know the Atom CPU you're using is slower than the Xeon D I have my box, but I don't expect it to be that much slower.

A couple more questions that come to mind right now:

Have you tried different set of SFP+ modules and/or fiber cables? If using a direct attached copper connection instead, have you tried a different cable?
Try this for me: Open two SSH sessions to your pfSense box. On one session launch the iperf3 server, i.e. "iperf3 -s". On the other session run an iperf3 test to localhost, i.e. "iperf3 -c localhost". What do the results look like? Hopefully they're nice and high.
Have you looked in the system's BIOS to make sure everything is configured properly? For instance, do you have any power saving setting enabled? Might want to disable them for testing (i.e. go max performance).

Hope this helps.