From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 9 11:19:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33761065670; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:19:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sodynet1@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B46B8FC0C; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obcni5 with SMTP id ni5so4859616obc.13 for ; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 04:19:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mzcoWRdB/rHv/jj6MwtqRFo23rqKD7HOsW9BXTVs4og=; b=pOO5FFdbfOdCEIUKaTud2J+6WaOMJyTm8/WpGRwYX2EHMxQeYYgpXVX/P9l6vbxbBx HQb8gNaCPbkHvhq31AT3XLjO4BQXFIX0wghBsXiiF2+S0Uv+MTKVEJiV9kE3mibZVIST 5YSTQb5phci+yFkMGDvDeALq//9zLxR7H+QgDyVN5fQ2yGfdxUezWpoySMhrGfBFZhH6 nSwIfJjKyUezs6YELhgK/wafL/fv9wvu8t35KIXypAtZJLO1AXyCTjc+X8viZezequ0X GMqCBINctI/p8o+WqsTk5WgsXc+JXHzLvjNn+NetIqCjbn6HoGhGCFiYB++ewF4F5hS2 AeIw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.18.137 with SMTP id w9mr10346001obd.75.1339240786017; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 04:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.44.101 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 04:19:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FD3224A.3080700@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FD3224A.3080700@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:19:45 +0300 Message-ID: From: Sami Halabi To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw rules consuming CPU X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:19:47 -0000 Hi, all rules togther less than 80 rules.... how tablearg helps this? each ip & pipe (up & down) are unique... any other advices? Sami On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > On 09.06.2012 01:56, Sami Halabi wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I Manage a FreeBSD server as an edge router& firewall. >> >> the setup has 10G interfaces (ixgbe-82599EB) and 1G interfaces(em-82571EB& >> bce-BCM5709) connected to 10G/1G switches. >> >> With the following setup i get higher cpu usage: >> bce1-upstream provider with little bandwidth, so i use pipes to limit >> users, and subnets >> ix0 - Internet Exchange >> >> some rules. >> . >> . >> .from 4000 starts pipes for specefic ips bandwidth allocations >> 04000 6210053001 5845967300616 pipe 1003 ip from 182.46.92.13 to any >> out xmit bce1 >> 04100 41289897537 3064110648124 pipe 1004 ip from any to 182.46.92.13 >> in recv bce1 >> > You should use pipe tablearg for that. Traversing 4k rules effectively > kills all performance. > > > . >> . >> . >> .7000 is the wider pipeline for the whole block >> 07000 9127154724 4651308720315 pipe 1000 ip from 182.46.92.0/24 to >> any out xmit bce1 >> 07100 4837016828 458027989917 pipe 1002 ip from any to >> 182.46.92.0/24 in recv bce1 >> last rule default to accept... >> >> specefic pipes (1003-...) have limits say between 1-10Mbps, and the wider >> pipe (1000 and 1002) has a global limit of 40MBps that should be reached >> by >> all other non-specefic ips, config like this: >> #Wide >> ipfw pipe 1000 config bw 40Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1002 config bw 40Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> #specefic >> ipfw pipe 1003 config bw 9Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1004 config bw 9Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1005 config bw 3Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1006 config bw 3Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1007 config bw 5Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1008 config bw 5Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1009 config bw 10Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> ipfw pipe 1010 config bw 10Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes >> >> >> with this configuration when i have lots of traffic (3-6GB) going via ix0 >> (not necessarly the ips described above, lets say to a server in my net ip >> 1832.46.93.4 and users behind the Internet Exchange) i see high cpu usage >> (70-90%). >> >> my first test was to: ipfw add 1 allow all from any to any, and cpu usage >> drops immediatly to 10-15%. >> but that not why i want (i wantto keep thelimits) so I add rule right >> before 4000 and the cpu usage drops down to 10-20%: >> 03020 1669463072808 1493341413029803 allow ip from any to any via ix0 >> >> >> Any advice why this happens? or should it be there in the first place? >> I use FreeBSD 8.1-R-p10-amd64. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> > > -- > WBR, Alexander > -- Sami Halabi Information Systems Engineer NMS Projects Expert FreeBSD SysAdmin Expert