Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing
-
@KDB9000
@johnpoz said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
DS1817+ Intel Atom C2538 Quad Core 4 Yes Avoton DDR3 2/8 GB
http://www.jadahl.com/iperf-arp-scan/DSM_6.2/iperf_avoton-6.2_3.7-1.spk
Install that spk, then ssh to your nas, then just run iperf3 -s
Then hit your nas IP from linux or windows client also running iperf.. I compile iperf3 for windows myself..
There was a slight hint in the post
-
oh if your on say 18 of ubuntu, yeah that looks like only 3.1.3.. 21 currently has 3.9
but shouldn't matter 3.1 to 3.7 would be ok, same port used.
-
@johnpoz said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
hehee - Yeah something getting missed. I clearly gave instructions in my post
And I also uploaded the lastest 3.9 version for windows.. not sure why you would be running some old 3.1 version ;) Are you on linux - if so I Know they have later than 3.1 available
@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
@KDB9000
@johnpoz said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
DS1817+ Intel Atom C2538 Quad Core 4 Yes Avoton DDR3 2/8 GB
http://www.jadahl.com/iperf-arp-scan/DSM_6.2/iperf_avoton-6.2_3.7-1.spk
Install that spk, then ssh to your nas, then just run iperf3 -s
Then hit your nas IP from linux or windows client also running iperf.. I compile iperf3 for windows myself..
There was a slight hint in the post
Actually, nothing was missed. That part does not show on my side.
-
The system has been auto updating the posts as they come in. I am guessing you edited it after the initial post and the system did not update it. When I refresh the whole thread, it now shows up (the screen shot was before I refresh the whole thread).
If you look at my post after yours with the Quote, it still shows the initial post quote that I responded to (which doesn't have the included instructions).
-
@kdb9000
Don't waste time on "instructions"
We WANNA see the iperf3 results
-
System A > Synology (Same Network)
>iperf3.exe -c 192.168.10.246 Connecting to host 192.168.10.246, port 5201 [ 4] local 192.168.10.60 port 58904 connected to 192.168.10.246 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 74.8 MBytes 627 Mbits/sec [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 74.8 MBytes 627 Mbits/sec [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 77.8 MBytes 652 Mbits/sec [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 63.5 MBytes 533 Mbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 73.6 MBytes 618 Mbits/sec [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 74.2 MBytes 623 Mbits/sec [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 76.2 MBytes 640 Mbits/sec [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 74.4 MBytes 623 Mbits/sec [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 75.9 MBytes 637 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 743 MBytes 623 Mbits/sec sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 743 MBytes 623 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.System B > Synology (passing through pfSense)
>iperf3.exe -c 192.168.10.246 Connecting to host 192.168.10.246, port 5201 [ 4] local 192.168.13.235 port 49405 connected to 192.168.10.246 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 78.0 MBytes 654 Mbits/sec [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 78.2 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 78.0 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 77.8 MBytes 652 Mbits/sec [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 77.9 MBytes 654 Mbits/sec [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 78.2 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 78.2 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 781 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 781 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.Drivers on all of the systems are up to date and the correct drives. The Synology is on the latest (and I do mean latest, I had to manually upload it from Synology) version of software. While the iperf seems to indicate there isn't a network issue, it doesn't explain why I have such a difference in speed in Layer 3 to Layer 2 (more then just SMB).
Before I moved the Synology to the same network as System A I would get the following (I don't have actual numbers, so it is from memory at this point) when running a backup:System A (Main VLAN) > pfSense > Synology (Server VLAN) with speeds in the KB range and failure to complete
System A (Main VLAN) > Synology (Main VLAN) with speeds in the MB range and completed without an issueWhen this test was done, I had two VLANs setup on the Synology (one on the Server VLAN and one on the Main VLAN). The backup is setup in the job to go to the Server VLAN IP. I told it to do a standalone backup (which is a full) to the Main VLAN IP of the Synology and got better results without failure of the backup. I also had issues uploading things to the Synology using OwnCloud when it was on the Server VLAN IP (no issues when it was on the Main VLAN IP, and this isn't SMB at this point). And those files were KB in size when it gave me issues. After the move to the Main VLAN, it didn't have an issue with those same files.
-
Funny that you have better performance on B->S via Vlan , than A->S via L2.
Is your A machine weaker ?Edit: You don't have Jumboframes enabled in one end do you ?
/Bingo
-
@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
Funny that you have better performance on B->S via Vlan , than A->S via L2.
Is your A machine weaker ?/Bingo
System A is my main computer, which has a lot of stuff open and running on it (lots of chrome tabs, email, couple instances of Discord, SSH sessions, Skype, etc...). System B is my Gaming rig which has a couple chrome tabs and Discord running for the most part.
-
-
@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
Just for completeness , try to run iperf the other way.
NAS as client , to A/B as server
Synology > System A
$ iperf3 -c 192.168.10.60 Connecting to host 192.168.10.60, port 5201 [ 5] local 192.168.10.246 port 33627 connected to 192.168.10.60 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 38.0 MBytes 318 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 40.9 MBytes 343 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 39.0 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 39.9 MBytes 335 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 37.7 MBytes 316 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 38.5 MBytes 323 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 35.7 MBytes 300 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 38.8 MBytes 326 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 41.5 MBytes 348 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 41.5 MBytes 348 Mbits/sec 0 94.1 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 392 MBytes 329 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 391 MBytes 328 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.Synology > System B
$ iperf3 -c 192.168.13.235 Connecting to host 192.168.13.235, port 5201 [ 5] local 192.168.10.246 port 52908 connected to 192.168.13.235 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 81.8 MBytes 686 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 82.1 MBytes 689 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 82.2 MBytes 690 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 82.4 MBytes 691 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 82.5 MBytes 692 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 82.2 MBytes 690 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 82.4 MBytes 691 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 82.5 MBytes 692 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 82.5 MBytes 692 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 82.4 MBytes 691 Mbits/sec 0 271 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 823 MBytes 690 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 823 MBytes 690 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.I did also get this once on the Synology going to System B:
$ iperf3 -c 192.168.13.235 iperf3: error - unable to receive control message: Connection reset by peer -
Again the L2 xfer is slower , this time by a huge margin.
But still performing much better than your reported APP throughput.You don't run Teamed network cards , w. shared mac ?
ISTR something like this a looong time ago on Cisco switches, when two HP servers was "teamed" and used the same MAC addr.
The Cisco went crazy as it saw the same mac on two ports , and was flushing the TCAM as crazy.
-
Well time to get some ZZzzzz - EU TZ
Good debug sessionBut a bit strange you're not even close to 930Mb/s , even on L2.
What netcards are in the NAS ?Take care
/Bingo
-
@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
Again the L2 xfer is slower , this time by a huge margin.
But still performing much better than your reported APP throughput.You don't run Teamed network cards , w. shared mac ?
ISTR something like this a looong time ago on Cisco switches, when two HP servers was "teamed" and used the same MAC addr.
The Cisco went crazy as it saw the same mac on two ports , and was flushing the TCAM as crazy.
The Synology has all 4 NICs bonded with LACP. The switch that the 4 connects are hooked up to are setup as an Aggregate on the switch side (which also uses LACP). I can see that happening if they did Teamed on the HP only without setting up the switch side (I have a coupler servers at work that use Teamed connections and they go into Port Channel groups on the switch).
I have experience with LACP, and if it isn't configured correctly it won't work at all (ran into issues with Port Channels and the Active/Passive setup).
-
@bingo600 said in Very Poor Performance on VLAN Routing:
Well time to get some ZZzzzz - EU TZ
Good debug sessionBut a bit strange you're not even close to 930Mb/s , even on L2.
What netcards are in the NAS ?Take care
/Bingo
What ever the built in ones are. The system doesn't really say.
-
The 5 different Synology models I opened up all had Etron Tech nic's.
