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

    XG-7100 1U Bridging Performance

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Official Netgate® Hardware
    8 Posts 3 Posters 926 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.
    • L
      LamboJ
      last edited by LamboJ

      Hi,
      I just purchased an XG-7100 1U to use at a colocation facility with a few servers. I'd like to bridge the 2xSFP+ ports with the LAN switch.

      How much of a performance/throughput hit will there be from bidging 10Gb SFP+ ports if I'm copying data between servers?

      The alternate would be to buy an SFP+ switch, and pay for an extra 1U of space as well as power, which I'd like to avoid if possible.

      Thanks.

      EDIT: To be clear, I'm aware that this isn't recommended/ideal. I'm just trying to weigh the performance/throughput cost versus the cost of an extra switch plus 1U of space rental at the colo.

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

        It's all done in CPU, which switch manufacturers avoid like the plague.

        I don't think there are any performance numbers to give you as it is not recommended and has not been tested.

        My advice is to try it and test it and see if it will meet your needs or not.

        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
        • L
          LamboJ
          last edited by

          Yeah, I tried it out, and it's quite slow. Getting around 2Gbps as opposed to ~9Gbps on a switch.

          Given this performance, what's the rationale for having SFP+ ports on the appliance? Is it just for media compatibility? If this is the switching throughput, I'd imagine routing throughput will be even lower.

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

            It is a layer 3 router, the layer 2 bridging is more for creating a transparent proxy, not bridging into a "switch." There is no way the CPU is ever going to be as performant as a switch ASIC, etc.

            Also, the links between the SoC and the Marvell switch chips are 2 x 2.5Gb load balanced so I would not expect a single stream to ever exceed 2.5Gb (You got 2Gb) with 5Gb being the absolute overall top end for real-world, multi-stream traffic.

            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)

            L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              LamboJ @Derelict
              last edited by

              Right, I'm aware that CPU switching is much slower than switching fabric. Based on my understanding of the interface links as listed in the documentation, if I'm transferring data from IX0 to IX1 it should never hit the Marvell switch, therefore the 2x2.5Gb limit isn't relevant to my test, right?

              So any throughput bottleneck I'm hitting is just the limit of the CPU, which is where routing is done as well. Given that, I was just wondering why there are 10Gbps SFP+ ports when it'll never get close to being saturated when used as a router.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Yes, you're right it won't hit the switch if you tested between ix0 and ix1. Did you disable filtering on the bridge members?

                As said I don't think we have ever measured the performance of the bridge driver, it's not really intended to be used for that.

                Steve

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  LamboJ
                  last edited by

                  Yes, I did disable filtering (net.link.bridge.pfil_member=0, net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge=1)

                  Am I correct in assuming that switching performance should be better than routing? i.e. if it's only used for layer 3 routing as intended, than throughput would be even lower?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    Not necessarily. Most of the same things have to happen in terms of moving data between the two NICs via the CPU. However I doubt the same effort has gone into bridge performance that has routing.

                    Steve

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • First post
                      Last post
                    Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.