Disappointing Firebox X750e performance



  • I installed 2.1 on my Firebox X750e with a 2.16Ghz Pentium M processor and was rather disappointed to only get 93Mbps LAN->WAN. This is less than a third of what I expected from what I'd read HERE.

    I've just down-graded to 2.0.3 and got the same result.

    These figures were measured using iperf from the LAN to WAN interface.

    Am I missing something here?

    Steve



  • My bet is your bottleneck is somewhere else in your setup but with the lack of network diagram and explanation of how you performed your tests I can guess no more.

    The tests I performed on my 550e with a mobile 2.26ghz proc are in line with your linked page.



  • I should have mentioned that a direct (via L2 switch) connection between the two test machines (Ubuntu Server and OS X) gives a throughput of 945Mbps.

    Steve



  • Also on my x750e I have about the same performance of the link, so the problem is another..

    Do you use first 4 port on the left or on the right?


  • Netgate Administrator

    Yes you should see well in excess of 500Mbps even with the original CPU.
    Are you sure your not mixing bits and bytes? 93MBps would be closer to the expected throughput.

    Steve



  • Erm… this is rather embarrassing.  :-[

    A link between two switches on my network had somehow dropped their negotiated link speed down to 100Mbps rather than the normal 1000Mbps. Consequently the link between the router and test server wasn't quite as fast as it should have been!

    I shall have to make some more measurements. My suspicion was aroused that I'd messed up when, after getting pfsense set up as I wanted I added an OPT1 interface with access only to the WAN so I could check my IPSec VPN performance from my laptop, and found that it too was just over 90Mbps!

    Steve



  • sk to sk it still wasn't brilliant.

    $ iperf -c 10.5.1.138
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Client connecting to 10.5.1.138, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size:  128 KByte (default)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    [  4] local 10.5.0.1 port 60165 connected with 10.5.1.138 port 5001
    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec   123 MBytes   103 Mbits/sec
    

    msk to msk interface I get rather astounding performance.

    $ iperf -c 10.5.1.138
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Client connecting to 10.5.1.138, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size:  129 KByte (default)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    [  4] local 10.5.4.2 port 61687 connected with 10.5.1.138 port 5001
    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  1.08 GBytes   932 Mbits/sec
    

    Can't complain at that. :)

    And VPN throughput from my laptop is acceptable too.

    $ iperf -c 10.5.1.138
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Client connecting to 10.5.1.138, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size:  128 KByte (default)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    [  4] local 10.5.0.1 port 62685 connected with 10.5.1.138 port 5001
    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec   122 MBytes   102 Mbits/sec
    

    Steve


  • Netgate Administrator

    The sk NICs are PCI and they share a single bus so their performance will always be worse. Should be better than that though, a lot better. Pretty sure I saw 500Mbps sk-sk.

    Steve


Log in to reply