Increased Memory and CPU Spikes (causing latency/outage) with 2.4.5
-
Mine is pfBlockerNG version 2.1.4_21, with this setting all works good:
Then i have disable all GeoIP lists, but enable DNSBL, and enable pfBlockerNG, and for now there is no problems with pfSense 2.4.5 on Hyper-V. System makes "crazy" when GeoIP lists is enabled in pfBlockerNG.
Have make post, maybe it will be helpful:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/151726/pfblockerng-2-1-4_21-totally-lag-system-after-pfsense-upgrade-from-2-4-4-to-2-4-5 -
@Gektor I deleted all the installed packages:
Open-VM-Tools
openvpn-client-export
squid
snort
zabbix-agent4and I disabled OpenVPN links unpriority; and the system conectivity was restored
-
@gusfersa On another production server with the same installed packages, only I disabled OpenVPN link to an another pfsense server 2.4.5, and the system conectivity restored
-
I've noticed something similar in terms of memory usage, but in my case cpu nice dropped in half and otherwise everything else seems status quo.
I'm not however noticing any latency outages or anything of that nature, but i've got plenty of free RAM so maybe that's the difference.
-
@digitalgimpus said in Increased Memory and CPU Spikes (causing latency/outage) with 2.4.5:
I've noticed something similar in terms of memory usage, but in my case cpu nice dropped in half and otherwise everything else seems status quo.
I'm not however noticing any latency outages or anything of that nature, but i've got plenty of free RAM so maybe that's the difference.
Same here, memory utilization spikes up from <20% before upgrade to 2.4.5 (w/all the same settings and packages) to 65-80% after upgrade.
Miscreant isolated to pfBlockerNG-devel (when uninstalled, memory use goes back to <20%) - running on netgate amd64 hardware, 8gb ram.
@BBcan177 any ideas on this, did this come up in the extensive testing done for 2.4.5? Any setting that could be tweaked (memory, feeds) or is this something that will require some coding/patching?
-
in quick testing here, it appears related to the pfblocker "maxmind GeoIP settings", either deleting the key or checking the box "disable maxmind csv database updates" makes the pfblocker pages respond near instantly again and gets rid of the long boot hang-time, which I'm assuming is breaking everything else and causing flapping in a loop as it keeps trying to reload it for high latency and other things!
I haven't tested further than that and cannot guarantee that's the only issue at hand, tested on minimal configured vm with nearly no traffic, but it slows it way down in many functions. -
@t41k2m3
You are running on a physical machine and it looks like you are not experiencing any issues other than higher memory usage. That can be attributed to how many entries are in DNSBL, especially with TLD enabled. I assume it was the same as before but you didn't notice it. DNSBL in Unbound will create a pointer in memory for each domain and it can eat memory. Nothing I can do about that. The upcoming Unbound python integration will make a significant improvement in memory usage tho. -
@taz3146
Are you in a virtualized environment as the others in this thread? There seems to be some issue with pfctl (which is used to create and update the IP aliases for the firewall rules) and with some virtualization software.
I have tested with VMware ESXi and can't reproduce these issues. Sent a message to the devs to see if the have any other guidance. Alternatively, setup a physical box with the same configuration and see if the problem exists without virtualization. Then we can attest narrow down the issue.
The deselection of settings in the IP tab should have no affect on anything. When you save that page it just writes settings to the config.xml and the nothing else. Probably you have something else happening in the background.
Would also suggest that everyone review the system.log and the pfblockerng.log for any other clues. -
@BBcan177 I agree. People blaming pfBlocker are missing the root cause of the problem, pfctl, not those apps/addons that feed it rules.
-
Just to add another data point : following upgrade to 2.4.5 from 2.4.4p3, I've noticed an increase in memory usage on a pfSense instance installed on a physical machine, but not any drastic increase in CPU usage. Memory usage jumped from ~7% to ~64% with no other changes bar the pfSense upgrade.
Machine info : Intel J3160, 4GB DDR3, Dual Intel 82576EB NIC.
Packages installed : openvpn-client-export, pfBlockerNG
If any more info desired please just let me know.
-
@ScottishTom
What version of the package? Would recommend devel and also try a reboot and see if that persists.
Can also run these two commands to see what particular process is involved:ps auxwww top -aSH"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."
Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
Twitter: @BBcan177 #pfBlockerNG
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/ -
@BBcan177 said in Increased Memory and CPU Spikes (causing latency/outage) with 2.4.5:
@t41k2m3
You are running on a physical machine and it looks like you are not experiencing any issues other than higher memory usage. That can be attributed to how many entries are in DNSBL, especially with TLD enabled. I assume it was the same as before but you didn't notice it. DNSBL in Unbound will create a pointer in memory for each domain and it can eat memory. Nothing I can do about that. The upcoming Unbound python integration will make a significant improvement in memory usage tho.@BBcan177 you are correct as to the summary of the situation, including same DNSBL entries, TLD on, only memory usage spikes (and not some of the other issues that seem to appear in virtualized environments). Not sure I'm following the theory of the case though. Meaning, given all else is equal (same pfS settings, same packages and their settings) but for the addition of pfS 2.4.5, it would reasonably follow (in fact proven by process of elimination) that some combination thereof (pfS 2.4.5 and pfB code/settings/others) begot a context writ large favoring these types of issues on different platforms. In fairness, there may be other contributing factors than pfB, though in this particular case, that is ostensibly not the case.
So, question is what could/should/would we do about it? Re: unbound, the python integration is listed as a new feature/change (i.e. not upcoming, but present) and the Unbound 1.9.6 seems to be compiled with support for python. If that was/is intended to be the help/fix, not sure that it is performing quite as hoped. Recognizing this is brand new and may need some burnishing, wanted to get it on the radar screen for you and pfS devs. Thanks for all your efforts.
-
@ScottishTom said in Increased Memory and CPU Spikes (causing latency/outage) with 2.4.5:
Just to add another data point : following upgrade to 2.4.5 from 2.4.4p3, I've noticed an increase in memory usage on a pfSense instance installed on a physical machine, but not any drastic increase in CPU usage. Memory usage jumped from ~7% to ~64% with no other changes bar the pfSense upgrade.
Machine info : Intel J3160, 4GB DDR3, Dual Intel 82576EB NIC.
Packages installed : openvpn-client-export, pfBlockerNG
If any more info desired please just let me know.
This seems like virtually the same or similar setup and problem as previously described (with qualification that a process at fault was not yet identified/hypothesized).
-
@t41k2m3
I posted above two commands that you can use to find what is using memory. Report back with what you find. I haven't spent much time with the release of 2.4.5 as things have been hectic. I haven't checked if the version of Unbound has changed from 2.4.3/4. That might be a reason if something has changed in the Resolver code.
In regards to the upcoming Unbound python integration, what you see in the Resolver settings will allow for a future release to integrate with the Resolver. It's just the plumbing and nothing else. There is no Python integration released yet. -
Hi, thanks for the prompt reply.
Currently running version 2.1.4_21 as installed from pfSense's package manager.
Output of ps auxwww sorted by memory usage:
Output of top -aSH sorted by size
Reboot does not appear to change anything, will just go try the devel version. Hope that helps.
-
@ScottishTom
Would recommend to uninstall pfBlockerNG and install pfBlockerNG-devel. Then see how that goes. Ensure "Keep settings" is enabled. You will need to re-enter the MaxMind key into the IP tab. Also best to reboot to clear Unbound. -
Have done as requested, now running pfBlockerNG-devel 2.2.5_29.
-
uninstalled pfBlockerNG
-
installed pfBlockerNG-devel
-
rebooted
-
force-updated DNSBL as it was complaining about being out of date.
-
rebooted again
Still appear to be at ~64-65% memory usage
FWIW I'm not complaining at all personally, the software is working fine for me and I'm seeing packets being intercepted by the block lists. Just seems strange to have had an almost 10x memory usage increase.
Appreciate the blocker software and your work on it very much, really simplifies things :)
-
-
@ScottishTom
Thanks for reporting back. Will check it out tomorrow. -
I'm getting the same thing with Hyper-V host, 2 deticated NICs all offloading turned off.
Interesting tidbit is that with me if I make any settings change and save it, it hanges for 20-30 seconds then pins the CPU, pings even over the lan to pfSense won't respond. Then it slowly comes back.
I have OpenVPN running but had no issues with 2.4.4. In the OpenVPN logs there is now an endless stream of: AEAD Decrypt error: bad packet ID (may be a replay): that weren't there before. The System time is correct.
AES-NI On or off doesn't make a difference (even after restart)
Internet is PPPoE if that makes a difference.
Download speed is normal. Upload speed is about half of what it should be compared to 2.4.4.
Note traffic shaper is enabled and I have some floating rules for Google Hangouts.
-
One thing to try would be to disable the Spectre/Meltdown mitigation, reboot, and see if that improves things.
I wonder if improvements have been made to it in FreeBSD 11.3 but those improvements maybe don't play well with virtualisation.I'm not in a position to test at the moment, can anyone else give this idea a go?
