Got a question for an issue I am having with my WatchGuard M400 or pfSense.
-
I have WatchGuard M400 that consists with a i5-4590 CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a 250GB SSD. I am running the latest production version of pfSense. I also have HAProxy and NTopng installed.
So the issues is the connection between my pfSense and cable modem gives me 1Gb/50Mb is very hit and miss with the speeds.
So that we are on the same page, if I take my Dell XPS L702X laptop (it's got an i7, 32GB of RAM, 2 SSDs) and plug it directly into my modem and do a speed test on fast.com, or using my carriers speed test site I get between 890~960Mb/50~54Mb depending on the app and the connection is makes to the test servers. Fast seems to be always higher than speedtest.
I ran a CAT6A shielded cable from my modem to my server room and plug it directly into the WatchGuard, I have even ran a 50' new piece of CAT6 cable direct path from the modem to the WatchGuard; unfortunately I cannot bring the modem and the router closer together. However when they are connected using one of the methods I get between 500Mb/800Mb max. This is my computer plugged it to my WatchGuard LAN port.
So I am not sure why there is such an inconsistency with pfSense, or maybe it's the WatchGuard. I checked with a friend who setup my WatchGuard as it requires a flash update and he assured me it has the latest FW installation. He's one of the guys who added a lot of input in the WatchGuard M400 thread here on pfSense.
So I am not sure where to start to try and resolve this issue.
Thanks,
-
First thing is to run
top -aSH
at the command line whilst running a test and see what the loading looks like across the cores.Check the interfaces status page for errors/collisions on the interface.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 said in Got a question for an issue I am having with my WatchGuard M400 or pfSense.:
First thing is to run
top -aSH
at the command line whilst running a test and see what the loading looks like across the cores.Check the interfaces status page for errors/collisions on the interface.
Steve
This is my 'top -aSH' info:
last pid: 58555; load averages: 0.12, 0.10, 0.08 up 1+11:01:26 20:50:43 265 processes: 5 running, 200 sleeping, 60 waiting Mem: 44M Active, 315M Inact, 372M Wired, 121M Buf, 7114M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 4096M Free PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 11 root 155 ki31 0K 64K RUN 3 34.6H 100.00% [idle{idle: cpu3}] 11 root 155 ki31 0K 64K CPU2 2 34.6H 100.00% [idle{idle: cpu2}] 11 root 155 ki31 0K 64K CPU1 1 34.6H 100.00% [idle{idle: cpu1}] 11 root 155 ki31 0K 64K CPU0 0 34.3H 100.00% [idle{idle: cpu0}] 82941 root 21 0 250M 217M nanslp 3 20:20 0.78% /usr/local/bin/ntopng -d /var/db/ntopng -G /var/run/ntopng.pid -s -e -w 0 -W 3000 -i igb1 --dns-mode 0 --local-networks 192.168 75145 root 22 0 95000K 34216K piperd 0 0:01 0.59% php-fpm: pool nginx (php-fpm) 37009 www 20 0 12224K 8080K kqread 1 20:00 0.49% /usr/local/sbin/haproxy -f /var/etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /var/run/haproxy.pid -D 82941 root 20 0 250M 217M nanslp 3 10:08 0.39% /usr/local/bin/ntopng -d /var/db/ntopng -G /var/run/ntopng.pid -s -e -w 0 -W 3000 -i igb1 --dns-mode 0 --local-networks 192.168 0 root -92 - 0K 1072K - 0 21:38 0.00% [kernel{dummynet}] 82941 root 20 0 250M 217M nanslp 2 7:42 0.00% /usr/local/bin/ntopng -d /var/db/ntopng -G /var/run/ntopng.pid -s -e -w 0 -W 3000 -i igb1 --dns-mode 0 --local-networks 192.168 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 1 4:11 0.00% [intr{irq265: igb0:que 1}] 82941 root 20 0 250M 217M bpf 3 3:56 0.00% /usr/local/bin/ntopng -d /var/db/ntopng -G /var/run/ntopng.pid -s -e -w 0 -W 3000 -i igb1 --dns-mode 0 --local-networks 192.168 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 2 3:24 0.00% [intr{irq266: igb0:que 2}] 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 0 3:24 0.00% [intr{irq269: igb1:que 0}] 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 3 2:33 0.00% [intr{irq267: igb0:que 3}] 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 0 2:18 0.00% [intr{irq264: igb0:que 0}] 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 1 1:28 0.00% [intr{irq270: igb1:que 1}] 12 root -92 - 0K 960K WAIT 3 1:22 0.00% [intr{irq272: igb1:que 3}]
And under Status->Interfaces the interfaces show 0/0 in/out errors and 0 colisions.
-
I assume that was not during a test since it shows 100% idle on all CPU cores.
Can we see the loaded output during a test?
Steve