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

    SG-3100 Slow Throughput

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Official Netgate® Hardware
    47 Posts 8 Posters 11.3k Views
    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.
    • A
      aus
      last edited by aus

      FWIW, I'm running a Dell R210 II via Xeon E31220 @ 3.10GHz on pfSense 2.4.4. Here's a recent speedtest from a server within my LAN:

      SpeedTest++ version 1.14
      Speedtest.net command line interface
      Info: https://github.com/taganaka/SpeedTest
      Author: Francesco Laurita <francesco.laurita@gmail.com>
      
      IP: 
      Finding fastest server... 7727 Servers online
      ............
      Server: speedtest: 2 ms
      Ping: 2 ms.
      Jitter: 0 ms.
      Determine line type (2) ........................
      Fiber / Lan line type detected: profile selected fiber
      
      Testing download speed (32) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
      Download: 954.57 Mbit/s
      Testing upload speed (12) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
      Upload: 799.39 Mbit/s
      

      I've seen a few other reports of performance differences between pfatt.sh, IP-Passthrough and no bypass. In the past, I haven't been convinced the problem is with pfatt.sh due to a variety of discrepancies with reported testing methodologies.

      That being said, I've never been able to push my upload past ~820 Mbit/s with pfatt.sh. It's very possible there is a subtle issue here. Unfortunately, there are a lot of moving pieces between AT&T, speed test methodology, pfSense, configurations, and hardware. Troubleshooting requires downtime, and like you, I signed a 99.999% uptime SLA with my family. ☺

      I'll keep following this thread. Curious to see how your testing goes.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • S
        sean.allen
        last edited by sean.allen

        Well...that sucked. It was faaar from "simply rebuild, then restore section by section" - but I did land on a much better result. A sincere thank you @torred @Grimson @Derelict @johnpoz @gsmornot @aus for your help. I spent a bunch of time in the config.xml file comparing my old config to a clean new one. Amazing how much rot develops over five years trying to learn pfSense and eek out better speed from AT&T.

        I am now between 600-700Mb down and 850-935Mb up. That is not a typo. My upload screams past my download. I can finally host that p0rn server I've always wanted to. Kidding aside, anything jump out as a reason for that difference? BTW - speed testing is a non-deterministic pile of poo.

        Side note: OpenVPN client performance on a gig line with a SG-3100 is thoroughly disappointing. Did a bunch of reading on that and no matter the link speed, seems that people are maxing the 3100 out at 100-150Mb. I thought about trying to set up IPSec instead, but I've had about as much fun as I can take right now.

        When I recover, I am probably going to rebuild this from complete scratch. Manually reenter everything - no restore. Kill cruft. Trying to figure out how to do that while also pounding some bourbon. What could go wrong?

        Any advice on upload outpacing download or OpenVPN client performance is appreciated.

        Y'all rock.

        0_1543520315595_bf61b7d5-a89e-4ca7-b7a9-665e34f408d3-image.png

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DerelictD
          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
          last edited by

          Great to hear. Without seeing what you changed, no. I don't have any ideas what it could have been.

          OpenVPN is just....slow. It spends more time context switching between user and kernel modes that it does doing anything else.

          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
          • RicoR
            Rico LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance
            last edited by

            OpenVPN VS IPsec forever and a day Flexibility VS Speed. 😶

            -Rico

            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              sean.allen @Rico
              last edited by

              @rico Interesting. You'd sacrifice 80-90% of the links speed to get the flexibility OpenVPN offers? That really says something...like I'm going to hate it if I try IPSec.

              G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • RicoR
                Rico LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance
                last edited by Rico

                I keep my fingers crossed for Multicore Support in OpenVPN 2.5 😂
                In the meantime you can run OpenVPN and IPsec peaceful together and do some testing, this should not be any Problem.

                -Rico

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • G
                  gsmornot @sean.allen
                  last edited by

                  @sean-allen said in SG-3100 Slow Throughput:

                  @rico Interesting. You'd sacrifice 80-90% of the links speed to get the flexibility OpenVPN offers? That really says something...like I'm going to hate it if I try IPSec.

                  It may appear to be 80-90% because 100Mb of 1000Mb but in reality IPSEC on the 3100 is only going to do @300. So yea, you’re giving up 66% in speed but only compared 300Mb. In my use, primarily mobile, I like OpenVPN for it “stay connectedness” vs IPSEC which can be less resilient to connection changes. OpenVPN vs IPSEC security I will let others speak on.

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