2.4.5.a.20200110.1421 and earlier: High CPU usage from pfctl
-
No. It has a serious problem, even at boot. With a clean install, it is extremely slow and stock for minutes on "Firewall configuration," even on a fresh installed OS. I think this new version has a problem with hyper-v
-
Same issue on Hyper-V. Only workaround is drop CPU to 1.
-
I can also confirm Hyper-V server core 2019 (Dell T20 Xeon) after upgrading my 2.4.4 VM to 2.4.5, I now have extremely High CPU when assigning all of my 4 cores to the Pfsense VM at boot. This is also being caused by the pfctl process (it seems) and consumes the boot process (up to 10 minutes to actually boot past configuring interface WAN > LAN etc)
After reducing the cores to 2 to the VM, it still uses high CPU at boot (2 minutes to boot), but I can at least use the internet and webgui (CPU under 20% - still high for my setup usually 1 - 3%).I can also observe the new OpenVPN version service when utilising my WAN (4mb/sec down only) the CPU is 23% for the openvpn process in top which is unusually high.
It seems the OS is not optimised for Hyper-V usage so I am reverting back to 2.4.4 and hoping this thread on the forum will be updated by Netgate Dev's.
-
@Magma82
Now i am using almost 2 days with 2 CPU cores pfSense 2.4.5 under Hyper-V Server 2019, no issues with high CPU usage at all after disabling pfBlockerNG GEOip lists. -
@Gektor Check out this thread. Worked for me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/comments/fqjdc5/pfblockerngdevel_downloading_lists_but_not_able/flqzkgp/ -
I am seeing this too. Running Hyper-V on a Dell R720. VM had 4 CPU assigned. No packages installed. CPU on the VM would spike to 100% for a few minutes at a time, then drop to normal briefly (no more than 30 seconds or so), then back to 100%.
Following recommendations earlier in the thread, I dropped the VM down to 1 CPU and that made everything operate normally again, as far as I can tell. Because it's not really a busy firewall, this is no real issue for me to have 1 CPU. Therefore I don't have a really urgent need to roll back to 2.4.4. I'll stay where I am until a patch is issued.
Sounds like the problem is specific to multiple CPUs on Hyper-V only.
-
I am seeing this too. We are running Qemu 4.1.1, Kernel 5.3 (KVM) and CPU emulation Skylake-Client.
Problem started with 2.4.4 and a upgrade to 2.4.5 did not solve the issue.
Workaround is to downgrade to one (1) core. -
Netgate DEVS, the CPU performance in HyperV is definitely broken in 2.4.5 - are there any Hyper-V integration tools or libraries that are perhaps missing in the OS build?
Boot up CPU with 4 cores assigned = 100% constant at an early stage of the boot process and is barely accessible once booted.
OpenVPN = CPU is also considerably higher under load (as if the CPU isn't optimised for the VM)
I have reverted to 2.4.4 and its rock solid and under 3% CPU in use and just feels a lot more optimised.
Hardware
stable 2.4.4-RELEASE-p3 (amd64)
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1225 v3 @ 3.20GHz
4 CPUs: 1 package(s) x 4 core(s)
AES-NI CPU Crypto: Yes (active)
Hardware crypto AES-CBC,AES-XTS,AES-GCM,AES-ICM -
Same issue, Server 2019 and Hyper-V, no packages installed on custom HW (Ryzen 2700) after upgrade. Pegs CPU upon boot and is basically unusable.
Set VM to 1 virtual processor to get it working but it is sub-optimal for OpenVPN clients. Even experimented with just assigning 2 virtual processors - it runs sluggish.
Will look to revert to 2.4.4-p3 snapshot in the near future.Edit: since I had nothing to lose and this is in a test lab, I bumped up to 2.5.0 development (2.5.0.a.20200403.1017). 2.5.0 does not seem to have the Hyper-V CPU issue.
-
Its the same in a VM on Vsphere. I run 32 cores on a test system and they all go to almost 100% shortly after boot.
I noticed that the server started spinning its fans a lot harder and looked in the hypervisor and sure enough. Almost 100% and not handling traffic at all....
I was running 2.4.4 p3 and no issues until Suricata wont start. Then I had to upgrade and it died....
-
i made a clean install on my esxi with 4 cpu
and upgraded from 2.4.4-p3 to 2.4.5 on another server with qemu/kvm with 4 cpu westmere
both have suricata installed, never had such a problem. and i'm unable to reproduce on my test lab, must be some settings -
Same problem here too Hvper V 2016 version 2.4.5
5GB RAM
4 CPU
pfblocker NGSits for ages on 'firewall' & Also DHCPv6 before booting really sluggish dropped packets galore
Dropped back to single CPU and all ok on 2.4.5
-
Same problem, pfsense 2.4.4 installed on Vmware Esxi. I have suricata, pfblockerng, squid, squidguard and lightsquid installed. After upgrading to 2.4.5 the latency went haywire. However, I've managed resolve my problem, I reduced 8 vcpu to 1vcpu then did the upgrade to 2.4.5. So far everything worked fine except suricata wouldn't start, so i did a Forced pkg Reinstall. Everything worked fine after that, then I added an additional 3vcpu and it's been working fine ever since.
-
Same problem here but with a Proxmox VM on pfSense 2.4.5.
2 CPU, 2 core
8GB RAM
NUMA disabledHigh CPU on "/sbin/pfctl -o basic -f /tmp/rules.debug" effectively killed my networks and VLANS, and both incoming WAN connections. pfSense would often crash and reboot automatically, which produces a crash report.
Dropping to 1 CPU, 1 core fixes it but it's running hard due to my network. 2.4.4_3 ran just peachy!
-
@Uncle_Bacon Have you tried adding cpu later (after the upgrade)? I noticed that maximum vcpu is 4 before it starts going crazy.
-
@slim2016 said in 2.4.5.a.20200110.1421 and earlier: High CPU usage from pfctl:
@Uncle_Bacon Have you tried adding cpu later (after the upgrade)? I noticed that maximum vcpu is 4 before it starts going crazy.
I have upped it to 8 so far and it runs pretty stable. Havent noticed a crash report yet.
-
It doesn't work properly with more than one vCPU (in my experience)
-
@Cool_Corona You are right, iv'e just added a total of 8 vcpu and gave it time to settle down after a boot, it seems to stabilise itself after a short while.
-
@slim2016 The point is its completely unstable with more than one cpu (when it doesn't work) including dropped packets.
This isn't acceptable to simply 'wait for it' to settle down. Also the boot times with multiple CPU are magnitudes slower that it should be, again not acceptable for a firewall.
If the root cause isn't determined are you happy for the firewall to randomly drop packets and generally die?
It's not happening for everyone but it is a bug and it needs to resolved.
The silence from NetGate is deafening. I understand its not happening on NetGate hardware - Does anyone have a subscription on a virtual machine that NetGate can address?
-
@timboau-0 I was responding to Cool_Corona
