Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(

[louis2]

@johnpoz

There are a couple of advantages related to jumbo frames:

• less overhead at the NAS
• more efficient transport
• 6 times less packages to process in the FW
• more efficient at the destination.

I do not know how big the overall benefit is (at 10G), is to be tested.

But why should you not use jumbo frames(!?) given the nowadays much higher speed and high quality fiber connections!

[michmoor]

@louis2 said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

But why should you not use jumbo frames(!?) given the nowadays much higher speed and high quality fiber connections!

Reply

Jumbo frames need to be enabled end2end. So if this is just flows within your network then go ahead. Out to the internet obviously wont work. I say use it and see if you get increased throughput.
In advanced networks Jumbo is a requirement (i.e. vxlan). If you want to toy around with that protocol you need Jumbo enabled.

[louis2]

@michmoor

Yep it is locally on my own network and all my switches do support jumbo frames no problem!

[johnpoz]

@louis2 and all your devices do - like your printer(s).. For jumbo to work it needs to be end to end with all devices involved.. And then I doubt your internet is jumbo, and for sure stuff out on the internet isn't - so you could run into stuff at your L3 having to be fragmented to go talk to something else, etc.. So guess what device your just pushing that extra work too.. Your low end firewall/router, etc..

To be honest other than specialty network, like a SAN.. and protocol like iSCSI it more than likely is not worth it..

If you want to setup a san between your pc and your nas at 10ge sure do that.. But what would that have to do with pfsense interface or a trunk/lag interface, etc.

I just don't see jumbo being something to even worry about other than some specialty setup - but sure have fun if you want, I just think its a waste time for at best a few % points, and a whole lot of extra headache..

So what would be interesting is sure do a test from your PC to your NAS using jumbo on the same network.. Now pfsense isn't even involved.. What speeds to do you get using jumbo, what speeds with 1500... And then what sort of difference in cpu do you see on your nas and your pc when doing 1500vsjumbo.

If its worth while to expand that to your whole network - great, now do other traffic like your PC using jumbo to and from the internet - do you see any performance difference, and difference in cpu load on pfsense or PC?

The only reason I can see for even entertaining changing the mtu, which is going to be some hoops is your 10ge at 1500 is not performing.. Are you getting enough speed to saturate your current disks both in read and write? Are your cpus on these devices just maxing out when you move a file? If your seeing full speed of your disks, and network is not the bottleneck - why mess with jumbo?

[JKnott]

@michmoor said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

So if this is just flows within your network then go ahead. Out to the internet obviously wont work.

The router will not pass the jumbo frames, if not configured for them on both sides. This means Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) will kick in, limiting the size of packets passing through the router.

I remember the days of token ring, which could handle even larger frames than 9000. 16K?

[JKnott]

@louis2 said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

@michmoor

Yep it is locally on my own network and all my switches do support jumbo frames no problem!

WiFi? I know WiFi has it's own version of jumbo frames, but that's to improve WiFi efficiency. I don't know how well it will handle this.

[JKnott]

@johnpoz said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

so you could run into stuff at your L3 having to be fragmented to go talk to something else, etc..

Fragmenting is obsolete. Path MTU discovery is used exclusively on IPv6 and largely on IPv4. With Linux, everything uses PMTUD on both IPv4 and IPv6. Windows uses it for TCP, but not other things. However, there's not much other than TCP that would have frames that big.

What speeds to do you get using jumbo, what speeds with 1500... And then what sort of difference in cpu do you see on your nas and your pc when doing 1500vsjumbo.

Maybe we should all go back to 576, as was often used in the early days of the Internet. I used to use that back in the mid 90s, when I first started using it with my dial up SLIP connection.

[JKnott]

@johnpoz said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

Are your cpus on these devices just maxing out when you move a file?

Another reason is the interpacket gap, which is 9.6 nS at 10 Gb. This means there's no traffic passed during that time. With faster networks, it soon adds up.

[johnpoz]

@JKnott said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

Path MTU discovery is used exclusively on IPv6 and largely on IPv4.

And doesn't always work..

Lets forget all the details.. My overall point is - unless the connection is not performing to his needs there is little reason to try and squeeze some theoretical extra out of it.. or efficiencies

Can his disks even even read or write where he would notice 9gbps vs 6gbps for example? What is his cpu use on all the devices in the path doing?

For all we know he is doing 9.39gbps now and jumbo would get him to say 9.41gbps, but disks are a bottleneck with any over 3..

Without a baseline benchmark of what is going on currently - its pointless to fiddle with jumbo, for all you know without the baseline is you will lower performance..

Something as simple an iperf with -V would give you a place to start

$ iperf3.exe -V -c 192.168.10.10
iperf 3.18
CYGWIN_NT-10.0-19045 i9-win 3.5.4-1.x86_64 2024-08-25 16:52 UTC x86_64
Control connection MSS 1460
Time: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:11:28 GMT
Connecting to host 192.168.10.10, port 5201
      Cookie: w6mju6xodzvlngg2tpiirvcdjnkthkytzsvm
      TCP MSS: 1460 (default)
[  5] local 192.168.10.9 port 60804 connected to 192.168.10.10 port 5201
Starting Test: protocol: TCP, 1 streams, 131072 byte blocks, omitting 0 seconds, 10 second test, tos 0
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-1.02   sec   409 MBytes  3.38 Gbits/sec
[  5]   1.02-2.00   sec   400 MBytes  3.40 Gbits/sec
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   408 MBytes  3.42 Gbits/sec
[  5]   3.00-4.01   sec   410 MBytes  3.42 Gbits/sec
[  5]   4.01-5.01   sec   407 MBytes  3.41 Gbits/sec
[  5]   5.01-6.01   sec   409 MBytes  3.42 Gbits/sec
[  5]   6.01-7.00   sec   400 MBytes  3.40 Gbits/sec
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   406 MBytes  3.40 Gbits/sec
[  5]   8.00-9.01   sec   407 MBytes  3.39 Gbits/sec
[  5]   9.01-10.01  sec   407 MBytes  3.41 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-10.01  sec  3.97 GBytes  3.40 Gbits/sec                  sender
[  5]   0.00-10.02  sec  3.97 GBytes  3.40 Gbits/sec                  receiver
CPU Utilization: local/sender 29.6% (4.3%u/25.2%s), remote/receiver 44.1% (1.3%u/42.8%s)
rcv_tcp_congestion cubic

iperf Done.

So lets call it 400MBps - if the disks can not read or write at speed - anything over that is not going to get you much.. My rust drives can only sustain about 270MBps write anyway.. So even if I had 10ge vs the 5ge interfaces I currently have, and the NAS one is just a usb interface, so very limited there.. Going jumbo at best would lower some cpu usage..

Now possible some lowering of that cpu use could help - but the user is pretty low anyway.. And its not like my cpu is always near max while saving a few cpu cycles while moving files is going to make any significant difference in overall performance that would be notice.. What does if when I transfer some files my cpu goes to 45 vs 40 util? And keep in mind that is prob reporting on only 1 cpu, both my pc and my nas has multiple..

Now here is with Jumbo..

$ iperf3.exe -V -c 192.168.10.10
iperf 3.18
CYGWIN_NT-10.0-19045 i9-win 3.5.4-1.x86_64 2024-08-25 16:52 UTC x86_64
Control connection MSS 8960
Time: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:13:51 GMT
Connecting to host 192.168.10.10, port 5201
      Cookie: jld4lka6x63xveq3u3wayaearobxrduqycql
      TCP MSS: 8960 (default)
[  5] local 192.168.10.9 port 23452 connected to 192.168.10.10 port 5201
Starting Test: protocol: TCP, 1 streams, 131072 byte blocks, omitting 0 seconds, 10 second test, tos 0
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-1.01   sec   425 MBytes  3.51 Gbits/sec
[  5]   1.01-2.01   sec   408 MBytes  3.43 Gbits/sec
[  5]   2.01-3.01   sec   414 MBytes  3.47 Gbits/sec
[  5]   3.01-4.01   sec   413 MBytes  3.48 Gbits/sec
[  5]   4.01-5.00   sec   412 MBytes  3.47 Gbits/sec
[  5]   5.00-6.01   sec   420 MBytes  3.49 Gbits/sec
[  5]   6.01-7.01   sec   417 MBytes  3.51 Gbits/sec
[  5]   7.01-8.00   sec   415 MBytes  3.49 Gbits/sec
[  5]   8.00-9.01   sec   423 MBytes  3.50 Gbits/sec
[  5]   9.01-10.00  sec   404 MBytes  3.43 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  4.05 GBytes  3.48 Gbits/sec                  sender
[  5]   0.00-10.01  sec  4.05 GBytes  3.48 Gbits/sec                  receiver
CPU Utilization: local/sender 22.0% (3.1%u/18.9%s), remote/receiver 40.5% (1.8%u/38.7%s)
rcv_tcp_congestion cubic

iperf Done.

So since since the 400MBps is way faster than my disks can write anyway.. The only benefit here is some lower CPU usage.. Is that small amount difference between 1500 and 9k really worth all the fiddling?

I don't really see it - and this is on a specific SAN connection just between my PC and my NAS - only used when they transfer files between each other.. So no worry about fiddling with any switches on my network, nothing to do with pfsense and no worry about talking to anything else on my network that just uses default normal 1500 mtu, etc.

I mean is that file transfer really taxing my cpu where a few percentage would matter? Here is my PC during a iperf test

yup there is a bit of a bump there - is dropping that a few % points going do anything? But if I show summary view - it might be 1% util change at best..

So I would really do some sort of baseline benchmark with just using 1500.. And see if moving to jumbo would even do anything for you other some sort feeling that your more efficient..

With modern cpus and modern nics - I don't really see it doing anything worth doing unless you have some sort of specific use case.

[louis2]

@johnpoz

I will have a detailed look at your mail later (at daytime)

The problem was that my config did contain a line which was probably generated in the past (automatically)
<shellcmd>ifconfig lagg1 mtu 9000</shellcmd>
Lagg1 did exist in the past but not any more !!!

I manually changed that line to
<shellcmd>ifconfig lagg0 mtu 9000</shellcmd>
and uploaded / reloaded that config

That seems to have fixed the issue (not the reason that the config was wrong!!)
After the change I could assign 9000 to the related interfaces.

No idea if the issue will return below the output of if config
also see pfSense https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3922

Before the change
ifconfig lagg0
lagg0: flags=1008943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,LOWER_UP> metric 0 mtu 1500
options=ffef07bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,TSO6,LRO,VLAN_HWFILTER,NV,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6,HWSTATS,TXRTLMT,HWRXTSTMP,MEXTPG,TXTLS4,TXTLS6,VXLAN_HWCSUM,VXLAN_HWTSO,TXTLS_RTLMT>
ether e8:eb:d3:2a:79:eb
hwaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet6 fe80::eaeb:d3ff:fe2a:79eb%lagg0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xc
laggproto lacp lagghash l2,l3,l4
laggport: mce0 flags=1c<ACTIVE,COLLECTING,DISTRIBUTING>
laggport: mce1 flags=1c<ACTIVE,COLLECTING,DISTRIBUTING>
groups: lagg
media: Ethernet autoselect
status: active
nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>

after the change
[24.11-RELEASE][admin@pfSense.lan]/root: ifconfig lagg0
lagg0: flags=1008943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,LOWER_UP> metric 0 mtu 9000
options=ffef07bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,TSO6,LRO,VLAN_HWFILTER,NV,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6,HWSTATS,TXRTLMT,HWRXTSTMP,MEXTPG,TXTLS4,TXTLS6,VXLAN_HWCSUM,VXLAN_HWTSO,TXTLS_RTLMT>
ether e8:eb:d3:2a:79:eb
hwaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet6 fe80::eaeb:d3ff:fe2a:79eb%lagg0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xc
laggproto lacp lagghash l2,l3,l4
laggport: mce0 flags=1c<ACTIVE,COLLECTING,DISTRIBUTING>
laggport: mce1 flags=1c<ACTIVE,COLLECTING,DISTRIBUTING>
groups: lagg
media: Ethernet autoselect
status: active
nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>

[louis2]

@louis2

I did configure jumbo frames by editing the config file. It is behaving strange
after reload the config
lagg0 is changed in lagg1 and MTU for 9014 to 9000. !!!???

But in the mean time I had change the vlan settings to 9000 :( and it works.

Actual results below. Issues are:

• data from NAS to PC is OK
• data from PC to NAS can be / should be better :(
• loosing frames when copying NAS to PC for jet unknow reason
• PC is using a smaller frame size, not optimal IMHO see wireshark traces

[johnpoz]

@louis2 and that is pretty meaningless without the baseline.. where your just using 1500..

And your length there in your pcap that is over your frame size would indicate your capturing on the sender device that has offload set, where the OS sends larger data and the nic sizes it correctly..

That part about missing previous segment doesn't actually mean anything was lost other not seen in your capture. start your capture earlier before you start sending data your interested in.

The difference could also just mean that the sender pc just not capable of sending any faster - could be disk limitation?

Why I would take the disks out of the equation and use something that just sends traffic on the wire, like iperf. As that an actual copy of data to/from disk?

As to 9014 vs 9000 - this could just be how nic/os displays the same thing - one counting the header, and one not..

For example my nas shows it as 9000, while my PC shows it as 9014.. But if you look at the interface it shows 9000

So your routing this traffic over pfsense, and your hairpinning it over a lagg with vlans.. So you really have no control over actual what physical path the traffic will take.. And your worried about efficiency?

[louis2]

@johnpoz

John as written I do not know all answers. Know that!

• however it is for sure that the NAS seems to prefer 9014 at trunk level above 9000 (I tested); The NIC in PC, NAS and pfSense are all ConnectX4 Lx. And the default frame values for that nic are higher than 1500 and 9000.
• I do know exactly the route of the lagg
• I do not know why windows 'send-frames' are not the expected 9000 nor that I know how to change that
• the disk at both sides PC and NAS (truenas scale) are NVME-drives. It is fore sure that the NAS can send 10Gbe and the PC can write 10Gbe (see NAS to PC)
• I do not know why not in the opposite. However the smaller frame could be one of the reasons. That is the reason that I searched, but not found a way to change that.
• MTU is not like MTU not like L2-MTU. An MTU of 9000 does probably not imply a net transport capacity of 9000. Probably 'some' bites less needed for overhead. And on L2 the frame needs to be bigger due to again overhead. I assume that this is not new to you. But it makes that it is not all-ways clear what is mend MTU.
• pfSense hardly have, not to say does not have a L2 interface GUI. I think there are bugs in pfSense related L2-handling (as related to laggs). See my experiences.
• the trace was started before the lost frames did occur and it does occur multiple times,
• I assume the length as displayed by WireShark is the L2 MTU-size. The traces are made on the PC. I think that I am going to make taces on the NAS side using pfSense to check what happens there.

[johnpoz]

@louis2 said in Trouble with configuring Jumbo frames :(:

I do know exactly the route of the lagg

Not what I meant - when you though a bunch of vlans on a lagg - you really have no control over what physical wire the traffic will flow over..

you could be up down on the same wire (hairpin), or you could be up wire 1 and down wire 2..

No the len is not the mtu size. How would you think that, it is well over your 9k jumbo

And where is the baseline of 1500?

[louis2]

@johnpoz

John, I will do a baseline 1500 test (promised!) , however I plan to do that after understanding ^completely^ what happens in the actual (jumbo) setup.

Which is not so easy ..

I did also make a wireshark trace of the traffic between NAS and pfSense and that seems not so 1:1 as I did expect. So one of the things I plan to to is to trace at the two sites of the firewall at the same time and compare them.

I also would like to understand what is causing the difference in transfer speed between NAS => PC and PC => NAS and why the PC is using significant smaller frames (and how to change that).

More issues like:

• what I am loosing packages !? And is that at both sites of the FW?
  (using wireshark at pc and probably also pfsense capture is affecting / slowing down the transfer speed)
• and the very doubtful way to setup frame/MTU size at pfSense

[louis2]

@johnpoz

I did make a parallel trace of the frames at both sites (nas side and pc side) of the firewall. The NAS trace using pfSense the PC trace using wireshark.

You can see that the frames at both sites are nowhere the same. I am not yest sure what to think about that and how to improve that.

Hereby I share the captures (as picture)

[louis2]

@johnpoz

John,

I am sill trying to improve the windows behavoir, but here the speed test I did form NAS to PC.

Which my actual PC NIC-connectX4 settings (jumbo 9000, send and receive buffers 2048 an RoCE on 4096, the rest default / on as far as possible) The figures are as follows:

• NAS => PC using jumbo frames via pfSense 9,3 gbit
• NAS => PC using 1500 frames via pfSense 6,8 gbit
• NAS => PC using 1500 frames same vlan 8.8 gbit

So the conclusion seems to:

• moderate gain for a same lan connection
• big gain with the firewall involved

Note there that the setup of my firewall is significant above average !!
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6600K CPU @ 3.50GHz
Current: 3602 MHz, Max: 3500 MHz
4 CPUs : 1 package(s) x 4 core(s)
AES-NI CPU Crypto: Yes (active)
IPsec-MB Crypto: Yes (inactive)
QAT Crypto: No

[johnpoz]

@louis2 and can your PC even write at 850MBps? your (6.8Gbps), let alone your nas at 1100MBps.

did you do this test over your lagg - where all you know your traffic is hairpinning when your nas sends via route, and clearly not when on the same network.

From your traces your offloading on your pc, and not on pfsense. That is why you see large size on your pc side and 9000 on your pfsense side. Where was the test from PC to nas with 1500 and jumbo?

Do a sniff where your pc traffic comes into pfsense. Your sure not going to see 62k size.

I would take the lagg out of the equation and use 2 different physical wires for your 2 networks for your 1500 vs jumbo tests.

For difference in 6.8 to 9.3 to make a difference your devices would need to be able sustain read/write at those speeds to and from their disks.. At 9.3 your talking about sustained read/write over 1100MBps

[louis2]

@johnpoz

John I will make a small drawing tomorrow. However My test setup is quite simple:

My PC and NAS are equiped with NVME SSD's

The NIC has two (fiber) ports.
port-1 is connected via the normal route vlan => pfsense => NAS
or in more detail
PC => 10G-switch
=> 10G lagg to pfSense
=> back to 10G-switch
=> to the NAS on the 10G-switch
=> 10G lagg to pfSense
=> back to 10G switch
=> 10G-switch to pC

Port-2 is connected to a small 10G-switch
small 10G switch to 10G-switch
to the NAS
back to the small 10G switch
back to the PC
All on the same GreenZone Vlan

For the test I did enable NIC port-1 for the tests via pfsense
and for the other test I enable port-2

For the 1500 test I changed the 9000 mtu in the following way
pfSense

• trunk on pfSense still 9000
• mtu for greenzone 9000 => 1500
  NAS
• trunk still 9000 (I think I did test with both 9000 and 1500)
• greenzone mtu back to 1500
  PC
• NIC MTU to 1514 (default value)

[louis2]

@johnpoz

To be shure

• one capture was made using wireshark on the PC and
• in parallel I used the capture on pfsense to capture the traffic towards the NAS