Intel DN2800mt x64 2.0.3-2.1 bandwidth
-
Do you have hardware flow control enabled on all the links?
What is the size of the data blocks sent over the wire in your tests? What TCP window sizes are you using? How many concurrent connections are you running?
iperf's default size 8, MTU 1500. just one connection
There is another pfsense box on the network, configured seperate vlan. I dont think that has anything to do with it though. it passes dhcp and dns to wan side. which iperf server is on that side of the vlan/wan depending if your left handed or right.
vlan side of subject pf, is direct to pc. Flow control is enabled on rx/tx
-
Are you running 'top -SH' to show all system processes etc?
If you try polling, it's not recommended, make sure it correctly stops polling when you disable it again. I found it sometimes gets 'stuck'. Reboot.
You could try enabling IP fast forwarding in System: Advanced: System Tunables: That usually speeds things up when routing but breaks IPSec so no good if you need that.
Steve
yup, i got stuck and had to reboot last night. I'll try the fast forwarding
-
Yeah - I'd read that sometimes polling doesn't work well, but I also figured it can't hurt to try if you are about to wipe and reinstall.
Still didn't get near full network speed huh? -
Yeah - I'd read that sometimes polling doesn't work well, but I also figured it can't hurt to try if you are about to wipe and reinstall.
I definitely do NOT recommend to touch polling unless you have quick physical access to the box. It can be so bad that reverting is troublesome even with serial console.
-
You did read that he was about to reinstall right?
-
Yep, device polling can end up switching so many cpu cycles to polling the NICs that the webgui slows to a crawl or even becomes unusable.
Here's some discussion of IP fastforwarding: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,57723.0.html
Does the pfSense box you're testing use VLANs directly? This could be a hardware off loading limitation.
Steve
-
haha… Its as if people would think thats my first button I'd switch.
I figure if you are about to wipe the box, may as well try everything first.
What I have gotten so far is "Device polling needs to be removed from the GUI as an option because it only breaks things worse". -
What I have gotten so far is "Device polling needs to be removed from the GUI as an option because it only breaks things worse".
Yeah, good idea…
-
I'm feeling a little defensive right now.
I'm going off to the corner to cry a while and drink coffee :P -
Beer@kejianshi:
I'm going off to the corner to cry a while and drink coffee :P
Beer >> coffee :P
P.S. Started a new thread on the device polling "feature".
-
Its a little early for me in the day to start swilling beer. I'm waiting till noon for that.
I have been wondering this for a long while but never have gotten a clear answer.
Does / can a HDD slow down the throughput of a build like this?
Is there an advantage in throughput for SDD over HDD (not talking about caching or swapping)? -
tried forwarding, gain minimal bandwidth. 32Mb exact. so now were near 352Mbish.. still way below capability
-
ive read on this forum in some post where a guy LOVES pfsense, but tried microtek. and performed 800 something on his board. I'm gonna try that real quick and see if its capable of routing on a different distro.
-
That will be interesting to see…
-
still working on it. tried monowall Bandwidth was almost halfed at 199Mb/s tried installing smoothwall but wouldn't boot the cd. sat at grub. tried mikrotik, i can't figure out the goofy key system they want to use. tried installing Untangle, sat at black screen during install. and now retrying clearos but takes awhile to install from cd.
Could all this be that it is the new NM10 chipset on this generation of atoms?
-
"Could all this be that it is the new NM10 chipset on this generation of atoms?"
That would get back to my assertion to newer and better is only better if compatibility is there 100% and its usually not in the first couple years.
But, I don't know the answer to that question. Do you have a old relic of a computer with a gigabit WAN port to try with?
If that blazes away, I'd maybe blame the new chipset.
-
"Could all this be that it is the new NM10 chipset on this generation of atoms?"
That would get back to my assertion to newer and better is only better if compatibility is there 100% and its usually not in the first couple years.
But, I don't know the answer to that question. Do you have a old relic of a computer with a gigabit WAN port to try with?
If that blazes away, I'd maybe blame the new chipset.
Nothing that would be slower then this atom.
I can't get clearos to register, im sure the firewall my district is using to block traffic has sniped my connection. I can't get any other distro to work at the moment either. not having any luck at all. the best i can do is take the card out and put it in a core 2 duo 8400 but that wouldn't prove anything other then the card works…. Im doing it.
-
There are a lot of boards using that chipset now. If it alone was causing this I'd expect more questions on the forum.
As you have found in the thread linked it's often possible to get better throughput with a Linux based OS. An unfortunate fact. However it's normally not an issue, the limit you're seeing is something more. In my opinion. ;)Steve
-
Same Nic in an optiplex 755, 109.8MB/s equals to 878Mbps. Had to use 2.0.3 on this one though, as 2.1 didnt give out an DHCP address.
-
Got my msata ssd in today so we will kill the HD theory in a bit
