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

    pfSense CPU Interrupts bottleneck during SYN FLOOD DDOS

    Hardware
    3
    10
    708
    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.
    • M
      madhatterfounder
      last edited by

      Hello,

      I work for a hosting company and we run a Dell Poweredge with..

      Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 0 @ 2.90GHz
      16 CPUs: 2 package(s) x 8 core(s)
      AES-NI CPU Crypto: Yes (active)

      On average, we have a constant 800k states, but when we get a Syn Flood DDOS attack we have 8 million. (10 million max)

      We are hitting a CPU Interrupts bottleneck, which puts our CPU at 99% and we start getting packet loss. Bandwidth is not a factor.

      We can block, no log, kill states on the subnets responsible and that brings it back down.

      We are implementing a DDOS solution, but in the meantime we want to throw more horsepower at the problem. I have seen debates about More Ghz vs more cores.

      But for the sake of the CPU interrupts bottleneck, would it help to have more cores? 32 or 64 with lower Ghz, or 16 Cores with 4.8Ghz (with Turbo)

      Thanks,

      Dan

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

        Depends what limit you're hitting now. Is 99% shown on the dashboard? Try running top -aSH at the command line to see how that load is spread across the cores.

        If it is showing 100% on the dash though it's probably using 100% on all CPU cores in which case anything will help.

        Steve

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          madhatterfounder
          last edited by

          That's correct, 99% on the dashboard. I don't think I kept any screenshots of top, but I will grab one the next time it happens.

          Thanks for your input.

          Thanks,

          Dan

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

            What kind of NICs?

            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
            • M
              madhatterfounder
              last edited by

              Chelsio 10Gb SFP+ T520.

              Here's my thoughts. And they do get out there sometimes so correct me if I am wrong.

              To me, it doesn't matter how WIDE (cores) we go, because the interrupts are going to keep building until the IPFW can process the packets that the NIC is receiving. All cores become consumed with the t5nex0.

              I have heard that the IPFW operates best with higher clock speeds, like it may be somewhat single threaded.

              Please confirm.

              Thanks,

              Dan

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

                Why are you talking about ipfw? Are you running Captive Portal?

                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
                • M
                  madhatterfounder
                  last edited by

                  Sorry, I was trying to edit my post, I meant the Firewall packet filer.

                  Thanks,

                  Dan

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

                    It doesn't scale linearly certainly. More cores will help as long as you have queues provided by the driver for them to service. The Chelsio driver provides 16 Tx queues and 8 Rx queues so it's unlikely more Cores than that will help.
                    16 faster cores will probably be able to provide more throughput. That's speculating somewhat though.

                    Steve

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      madhatterfounder
                      last edited by

                      Thanks you,

                      I assume you meant 16Rx and 8Tx queues?

                      It sounds like you are saying that each queue is limited to one core, and if so, could it help to have at least 24 cores? (16+8).

                      Thanks,

                      Dan

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

                        Sorry, yeah, typo'd that. It's 8 Rx cores.

                        I'm not sure how that load would spread across 24 cores. There may be some work required to get the appropriate core affinity.

                        Steve

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