Throughput problems on 4100

SteveITS

@ahxcjay said in Why is the 4100 performance such trash?:

Nope. Direct into patch panel.

I'm writing too fast. :) I meant add a switch. But that doesn't make sense if multiple streams are 2x fast because it's not being throttled at that network level.

re: System/Advanced/Miscellaneous, the crypto setting, but never mind, it's not relevant.

One thing you could try is to back up your config, set to factory defaults, and reproduce that way. If it's fast, it's a config issue. Worst case restore your config to get back to where you are now. And can restore parts of the config to test.

ahxcjay

@steveits ..that's one for the weekend.. ;)

All other (single threaded) web upload activities suffer this issue. Dropbox, iCloud..etc. Once I do something multi-threaded, performance is completely fine.

To @keyser - where is your gigabit connection with a 4100 against a single threaded upload via a web browser? I'm all eyes...

stephenw10

What interfaces are you using on the 4100?

Try connecting to command line and running top -HaSP whilst you're uploading.

Is either core hitting 100% load?

What loading from processes is there?

Steve

ahxcjay

@stephenw10

What interfaces are you using on the 4100?

WAN1 & LAN4.

Try connecting to command line and running top -HaSP whilst you're
uploading.

..did that earlier and noticed nothing. Let me try again.

Is either core hitting 100% load?

Barely under any load..

What loading from processes is there?

Hardly anything. See screenshot.

stephenw10

Hmm, that really is almost nothing.

I wonder if there's a flow-control issue there.

I assume WAN and LAN are linked at 1G?

As a test try reassigning the interfaces so both WAN and LAN are using the ix NICs or both using the igc NICs.

When you're testing that is the throughput constant or very 'peaky'?

Steve

ahxcjay

@stephenw10 said in Why is the 4100 performance such trash?:

Hmm, that really is almost nothing.

I wonder if there's a flow-control issue there.

..I would love to know what it is.. :)

I assume WAN and LAN are linked at 1G?

Yep. All good there.

As a test try reassigning the interfaces so both WAN and LAN are using the ix NICs or both using the igc NICs.

Let me go and do that now. I'll use the 'igc' NICs.

When you're testing that is the throughput constant or very 'peaky'?

Pretty constant I would say...

ahxcjay

O M G

IT FIXED IT !

..this is a bug, right?

keyser

@ahxcjay said in Why is the 4100 performance such trash?:

To @keyser - where is your gigabit connection with a 4100 against a single threaded upload via a web browser? I'm all eyes...

Sorry I cannot complete the test for you right now, as I only have SG-4100s at customer sites. My own boxes are SG-2100/SG-6100.
But i distinctly remember doing a single stream test and still seeing a 9xxMbps number on a QinQ line that will do about 940Mbps @ 100%.

I’m happy Steve found the issue (VERY likely flow control), and that’s exactly my point with my first post. People in here are very very helpfull and know A LOT about these boxes, potential issues and what not.
We alle want to help, but it’s not very motivating when posts like yours just flame the product by stating that the specs and performance of these boxes are invented ficticious numbers from netgate.

The problem is that google searches from people also finds this post, and some people only read headlines….

bingo600

@ahxcjay said in Why is the 4100 performance such trash?:

O M G

IT FIXED IT !

..this is a bug, right?

I have read this two times now ....
What fixed it ????

Factory reset or ????

Gertjan

@bingo600 said in Why is the 4100 performance such trash?:

I have read this two times now ....
What fixed it ????

Me 3 times.
And I have a 4100 in front of my.
I've 4 igc0-1-2-3 interfaces, an ix2 and an ix3. The latter two are combo ports :
See here.

I presume the fix was : use WAN on igc0 and all the LANs on igc1, 2 and 3 - not using ix2 and ix3.

stephenw10

Yeah, I read that as using igc as WAN fixed it. In which case it's probably linking differently than ix to whatever is upstream. Potentially with or without flow-control.
You'd have to check the ifconfig output from each to know more.

Steve

ahxcjay

@stephenw10 igc as WAN fixed it. What would cause this behaviour..?

ahxcjay

@gertjan correct. Once I removed ix from the ports used my line is at full speed on all uploads again! Amazing.

Thank you everyone!

stephenw10

@ahxcjay said in Throughput problems on 4100:

What would cause this behaviour..?

I would think it must be something in the link negotiation there. I would check the ifconfig -vv output for each NIC to start with. It 'feels' like a flow control issue. You would see 'rxpause, txpause' in that output. It can be disabled (or enabled) on ix if it is that.

Steve

ahxcjay

@stephenw10 great info. Thank you! I am so happy this is fixed as I love the product.

Gertjan

@stephenw10 said in Throughput problems on 4100:

I would think it must be something in the link negotiation there. I would check the ifconfig -vv output for each NIC to start with. It 'feels' like a flow control issue. You would see 'rxpause, txpause' in that output. It can be disabled (or enabled) on ix if it is that.

For the one and only 'ix' I use as a WAN to my 1Gbits/sec ISP router, I see :

ix3: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
        description: WAN
        options=e138bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_UCAST,WOL_MCAST,WOL_MAGIC,VLAN_HWFILTER,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
        ether 90:ec:77:xx:39:2a
        inet6 fe80::92ec:77ff:fe29:392a%ix3 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x8
        inet 192.168.10.5 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.10.255
        media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex,rxpause,txpause>)
        status: active
        nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>

In short :

media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex,rxpause,txpause>)

for the port that is in use.

This is normal / not normal ?
Btw : I don't mind for now, as I have 23 Mbits/sec down and 2 Mbits/sec up for now.
Gbit fibre is coming at the end of the month.

ahxcjay

@keyser said in Throughput problems on 4100:

We alle want to help, but it’s not very motivating when posts like yours just flame the product

Fair point, and I apologise. I was just so frustrated that I really really like the product, yet the upload speeds were killing my enjoyment of it. I asked the mods to change $subject to something more appropriate.

The problem is that google searches from people also finds this post, and some people only read headlines….

Understand, and that was in my thinking also, hence the request to change the $subject.

keyser

@ahxcjay said in Throughput problems on 4100:

@keyser said in Throughput problems on 4100:

We alle want to help, but it’s not very motivating when posts like yours just flame the product

Fair point, and I apologise. I was just so frustrated that I really really like the produt, yet the upload speeds were killing my enjoyment of it. I asked the mods to change $subject to something more appropriate.

The problem is that google searches from people also finds this post, and some people only read headlines….

Understand, and that was in my thinking also, hence the request to change the $subject.

This post on the other hand, just earns the full respect of all of us

We can all make mistakes, especially when frustrated - but it takes a real man to own up to it, acknowledge a mistake was made and apologise.
If only all people showed this kind of respect instead of fleeing the “crime scene”, the Internet would be SO much a better place.

Thank you for responding and kudos to you