Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:30:35 +0100
From:      Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org>
To:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>
Subject:   Re: performance issue within VNET jail
Message-ID:  <53687746-C487-4712-AA52-DE86CE70FDEF@ellael.org>
In-Reply-To: <5A3D67EC.6010907@grosbein.net>
References:  <4F5EE3F6-0163-4435-8726-56B0D4AE9FAF@ellael.org> <B6446660-9FD2-4C28-A3A2-8AC99624C7FF@sigsegv.be> <8102F5FD-DCFC-4EF8-A443-9E6C9EB1F467@ellael.org> <DB5DE737-7171-4953-AF98-45F1BE7AF09E@sigsegv.be> <8C8A172B-4D4F-4066-8B94-EF5F59E2D345@ellael.org> <5A3D67EC.6010907@grosbein.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi =E2=80=94

[  I am including freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org now and removing =
freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org             ]
[  Thread starts at =
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2017-December/049470.html =
 ]

Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote:
> Michael Grimm wrote:
>> Kristof Provost <kristof@sigsegv.be> wrote:

>>> I run a very similar setup (although on CURRENT), and see no =
performance issues from my jails.
>>=20
>> In utter despair I did upgrade one server to CURRENT (#327076) today, =
but that hasn't been successful :-(
>>=20
>> Ok, right now I do know:
>>=20
>> (#) there is *no* performance loss (TCP) when:
>>=20
>> 	(-) fetching files from outside through PF/extIF to host
>> 	(-) fetching files from partner server host via IPSEC tunnel =
bound to extIF (ESP) to host
>> 	(-) fetching files from partner server host via IPSEC tunnel =
bound to extIF (ESP) to jail via bridge
>> 	(-) fetching files from partner server jail via bridge and then =
via IPSEC tunnel bound to extIF (ESP) to host
>> 	(-) fetching files from partner server jail via bridge and then =
via IPSEC tunnel bound to extIF (ESP) and then via bridge to jail
>>=20
>> (#) there is a *dramatic* performance loss (TCP) when:
>>=20
>> 	(-) fetching files from outside through PF/extIF via bridge to =
jail
>>=20
>> (#) I did try to tweak the following settings *without* success:
>>=20
>> 	(-) sysctl net.inet.tcp.tso=3D0=20
>> 	(-) sysctl net.link.bridge.pfil_onlyip=3D0
>> 	(-) sysctl net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge=3D0
>> 	(-) sysctl net.link.bridge.pfil_member=3D0=20
>> 	(-) reducing mtu to 1400 (1490 before) on all interfaces extIF, =
bridge, epairXs
>> 	(-) deactivating "scrub in all" and "scrub out on $extIF all =
random-id" in /etc/pf.conf
>> 	(-) setting "set require-order yes" and "set require-order no" =
in /etc/pf.conf [1]
>>=20
>> [1] I do see more a lot of out-of-order packages within a jail =
"netstat -s -p tcp" after those slow downloads, but not after downloads =
via IPSEC tunnel from partner host.
>>=20
>> That leads me to the conclusions:
>>=20
>> 	(#) the bridge is not to blame
>> 	(#) it's either the PF/NATing or something else, right?
>>=20
>> Thanks for your suggestions so far, but I am lost here. Any ideas?
>=20
> It seems to me some kind of bug in the PF.
> I personally never tried it, I use ipfw and it works just fine.

Before testing IPFW (which I have never used before) I'd like to ask the =
experts in freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org about possible tests/tweaks regarding =
PF.

Thanks to all involved so far and regards,
Michael







Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53687746-C487-4712-AA52-DE86CE70FDEF>