Advice to installing on linux/virtualbox host and VIRTIO driver (for maximum nic performance and stability)



  • Yeah so, I'll reading about some docs on web and I learning about VIRTIO support VM's with Virtual Box and same VIRTIO support for free BSD kernel as well.

    Looks like applicable without big issues, when I read Netgate documentation Virtualization and VIRTIO support.
    and Oracle VBox networking manual statement:
    The "Paravirtualized network adapter (virtio-net)" is special. If you select this, then VirtualBox does not virtualize common networking hardware (that is supported by common guest operating systems out of the box). Instead, VirtualBox then expects a special software interface for virtualized environments to be provided by the guest, thus avoiding the complexity of emulating networking hardware and improving network performance. Starting with version 3.1, VirtualBox provides support for the industry-standard "virtio" networking drivers, which are part of the open-source KVM project.

    This will be nice on the paper, now I want to know if anyone else guys of Netgate Community, have try before, in past this specific configuration and if this is reliable for home office dayly use or only for testing purpose.

    Thanks to all who want reply to this.
    Regards.


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    You can't say "VirtualBox" along with "performance and stability" in the same sentence. It isn't up to that task.

    That said, pfSense includes VIRTIO drivers in the kernel, and has for a few versions now.



  • @jimp said in Advice to installing on linux/virtualbox host and VIRTIO driver (for maximum nic performance and stability):

    You can't say "VirtualBox" along with "performance and stability" in the same sentence. It isn't up to that task.

    LOOL ๐Ÿ‘

    That said, pfSense includes VIRTIO drivers in the kernel, and has for a few versions now.

    I not understand if you are sarcastic or just kidding me, but I will only know the opinion of folks have tried this. Sorry. ๐Ÿ™

    By other hands I tell you about my experience related to software like "xpenology" working well enough on my Xeon 16 core based server, virtualized under virtualbox, yes indeed just fine enough for small home office tasks.


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    If it works for you, great, but it does not have a good track record.

    pfSense includes VIRTIO drivers in the kernel and they work fine in KVM. The drivers have been included in the kernel since pfSense 2.2, nearly four years ago. If they do not work with VirtualBox, then it's a problem with VirtualBox.



  • Pfsense works perfectly for me under centos kvm with virtio nics for many months now in a production environment. Intel nics are used as bridges on the host os.
    Just remember to disable all hardware related acceleration for nics.



  • @netblues thanks for your feedback. :D Great I'd try soon or later.


  • Netgate Administrator

    I have used it, it works fine I've not seen any problems. I have never attempted to test relative performance.

    0_1543334904480_pfSense 2.4.4p1 [Running] - Oracle VM VirtualBox_522.png

    Steve



  • Thank you for feedback @stephenw10 , also thank for moving this thread under correct section. ๐Ÿ‘ Bye.



  • @babiz As for performance here are some tests

    iperf -c 192.168.1.14

    Client connecting to 192.168.1.14, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)

    [ 3] local 192.168.1.13 port 36176 connected with 192.168.1.14 port 5001
    [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
    [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 21.7 GBytes 18.6 Gbits/sec

    Centos host to centos guest, over virtio (interfaces appear as 10G)

    centos host to pf guest

    [root@dell710r ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.1

    Client connecting to 192.168.1.1, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)

    [ 3] local 192.168.1.13 port 36370 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
    [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
    [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.21 GBytes 1.04 Gbits/sec

    I never managed to get more than 1 Gig, but then I have various limiters configured, and since 1g exceeds the sum of all wan interfaces never researched it further.

    ifconfig
    vtnet0: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
            options=6c00b8<VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
            ether 52:54:00:45:4e:95
            hwaddr 52:54:00:45:4e:95
            inet6 fe80::5054:ff:fe45:4e95%vtnet0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 
            inet 192.168.1.251 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 
            inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 vhid 1 
            nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
            media: Ethernet 10Gbase-T <full-duplex>
            status: active
            carp: MASTER vhid 1 advbase 1 advskew 0
    

    Regards



  • @netblues I consider this interesting on the subject... (by a linux-bsd expert)
    https://medium.com/@matteocroce/linux-and-freebsd-networking-cbadcdb15ddd



  • @netblues Thank so much for your detailed feedback here, is great to see high bandwidth under iperf test, for me. ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
    It's outstanding all my thinks! ๐Ÿ˜ฎ
    Now ๐Ÿ— I'm hurry to do my iperf result too. And I also happy to try with my bare hardware! Hmmm ๐Ÿฆ„

    See you soon, regards.