From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Thu Dec 21 21:42:44 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11BDE8CF93; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:42:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trashcan@ellael.org) Received: from mx2.enfer-du-nord.net (mx2.enfer-du-nord.net [IPv6:2001:41d0:401:2100::5:8a0e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5847A13F; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:42:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trashcan@ellael.org) Received: from [IPv6:2003:8c:2e04:e501:40cc:d10e:17c0:531] (p2003008C2E04E50140CCD10E17C00531.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:8c:2e04:e501:40cc:d10e:17c0:531]) by mx2.enfer-du-nord.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3z2lV844m7z5t; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:42:24 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Subject: Re: performance issue within VNET jail From: Michael Grimm In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:42:22 +0100 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4F5EE3F6-0163-4435-8726-56B0D4AE9FAF@ellael.org> <8102F5FD-DCFC-4EF8-A443-9E6C9EB1F467@ellael.org> To: Kristof Provost X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:42:45 -0000 Kristof Provost wrote > On 21 Dec 2017, at 21:50, Michael Grimm wrote: >> Kristof Provost wrote: >>> Can you try turning off TSO? (`ifconfig $ifname -tso`) >>>=20 >>> There have been issues with pf and TSO checksums, which looked a lot = like this (i.e. bad TCP performance). Those problems should be fixed, = but this is easy to test. >> I did try it, but without success. > Hmm. I=E2=80=99ve got no ideas at the moment. I run a very similar = setup (although on CURRENT), and see no performance issues from my = jails. > Can you test a performance test without pf? Perhaps from the local LAN = for example? That should help narrow it down a bit, at least. Well I prepared on of my webservers running at hostB/jailX to serve a = sample file for local downloading tests: 1) hostA wget from hostB/jailX sample file: about 30 MB/s 2) hostA/jailY wget from hostB/jailX sample file: about 30 MB/s 3) hostB wget from hostB/jailX sample file: about 190 MB/s 4) hostB/jailY wget from hostB/jailX sample file: about 190 MB/s Hmm. At least tests 3) and 4) omit the pf firewall. Tests 1) qnd 2) = include passing two firewalls, one at each host. BUT: Both hosts are = connected via an IPSec tunnel, and that's esp not tcp. Can anyone draw conclusions from this test?=20 I cannot ;-) Thanks and regards, Michael