Help: Strange performance issue with Wireguard
-
@michmoor Thanks for the suggestion. I just uninstalled and reinstalled WG, rebuilt all the tunnels again.. still getting the 300 ms ping time and poor overall bandwidth around 70~80 mbps
-
@faux123 No problems here. Tested with my own VPS.
So I guess it has something to do how you made the tunnel work with pfSense? -
@bob-dig There's definitely something not quite right with pfsense... so after uninstall/reinstall process, I did a cold reboot and checked again it didn't change anything still at 300 ms ping...
But then I decided to reboot it a couple more times WITHOUT changing anything.. Now my ping has come down to around 120 ms which is 2x the Windows 11 ping to the same exact endpoint... This is still quite baffling to me why without changing anything just by rebooting would affect Wireguard behavior....
I will continue to investigate on my own a bit more as to why behaviors are so different to the same exact endpoint on wireguard.
-
@faux123 its probably more helpful to say there is an issue with your possible hardware or software set up. Pfsense operates on variety of machines and there are typically no issues involved. I have ran it on Protectli hardware and now running on Netgate hardware. Absolutely no issues aside from a misconfiguration.
As i mentioned before, the fact that you have poor performance on two different VPN protocols speaks to something other than pfsense here.
What NIC drivers are you using?
-
@michmoor My pfsense is an Intel Nuc with i5-6260u processor. It has a built-in Intel Gigabit LAN and I added an M.2->Gigabit ethernet adapter so I can have dual LAN controller. The added LAN is based on RealTek chipset. I'm aware of realtek issues historically, but I have the latest 1.96.04 driver installed and I haven't had any issues with it (no drop outs, running Suricata DPS with no loss in performance). I routinely get close to my maximum speed (1 gbps) testing with speed tests from different sites...
-
@faux123 What is performance like when just using the internet without tunneling all your traffic to a 3rd party provider?
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/low-throughput.html#insufficient-hardware
-
@michmoor with direct connection, I can get close to the theoretical 1 gbps on my fiber link up and down.
BTW, I have SOLVED my problems!
After posting here, I decided to SWAP between my WAN (intel) and LAN (realtek) adapters... Now I have WAN with Realtek and LAN with Intel and this apparently FIXED the high latency and bandwidth issue at the SAME time!
It seems that WG is a kernel implementation, it must have some sort of direct interaction with the underlying kernel ethernet drivers... There exist some compatibility issues with WG Kernel driver and Realtek driver where latency and bandwidth were severely affected. Now with Intel driver and WG talking to each other (since WG is on the LAN side), everything is working as expected. I'm now getting the same 60ms ish pings with Pfsense and around 500 mbps bandwidth same as direct Windows 11 WG tunnel!
TL;DR:
If you run WIREGUARD, make sure it is paired with the INTEL ETHERNET Driver to NOT have funny latency and bandwidth issues!
-
@faux123 Why do you think it is paired with the LAN Adapter? WireGuard is most probably running on every interface. I have no doubt, that your problem is somehow related to your NICs, that seems to be a given.
-
@bob-dig agreed. there is some configuration here thats not good.
-
@bob-dig the reason I suspect the Realtek LAN driver is tied to WG is due to the fact I didn't change ANY settings other than swapping the interfaces between LAN and WAN. Wireguard tunnels, routing and firewall rules all remained exactly the same as before (when I changed things, I always tried to change 1 thing at a time so I know what each change's effects were).
Due to this experience, I just bought another M.2->LAN adapter with Intel chipset this time for my Intel Nuc. I will swap my Realtek adapter (currently running as WAN) and try a few more experiments to see if it had something to do with the m.2->LAN issue or not.
