QoS issues (again)

Hello,

What are the results when you perform the test without any users on the network and please share result? Also have you tried directly testing without the FW? PC->directly connected to router->Speedtest? could you share result if you're getting exactly 500 or at least near 500MB DL speed w/o the FW?

Also could you share your current SFOS version? Thank you

Regards,

I have replied to you, but my post was flagged as spam, possibly due to the fact that I pasted speedtest links to share the results (was running the windows app this time).

Anyway, since I don't know when/if my reply will be unflagged, I am replying again..

So at the moment there is not much bandwidth consumed at the house

Run a speedtest (from a linux machine now) without the firewall rule enabled:

Download: 422.91 Mbps (data used: 407.7 MB)
32.73 ms (jitter: 4.52ms, low: 3.74ms, high: 253.45ms)
Upload: 52.96 Mbps (data used: 25.2 MB)
44.28 ms (jitter: 9.33ms, low: 19.42ms, high: 292.46ms)
Packet Loss: 0.0%

I enable the firewall rule again:

Download: 313.15 Mbps (data used: 238.5 MB)
5.93 ms (jitter: 1.43ms, low: 2.98ms, high: 12.61ms)
Upload: 47.09 Mbps (data used: 22.4 MB)
2.84 ms (jitter: 0.41ms, low: 2.27ms, high: 12.94ms)
Packet Loss: 0.0%

I disabled the rule again and at the next speedtest I got 430/45

I enabled it then once more and got 310/47

The ISP's router is set to bridge mode, which effectively turns it to an ONT

I have seen many times the speed reaching at 500, but even if I didn't, the QoS rule (which has the correct numbers for KBps) should not limit me to 300, it should at least give me the full available speed since it is capped at a higher speed that the actual one. It should not contantly cap me at 300

I am running the latest sfos version SFVH (SFOS 20.0.2 MR-2-Build378)

CPU1 runs to 99.7% and appears to carry the load which looks like thE CPU performance is the limiting factor.

Ian

I guess you mean cpu0, but it makes no difference anyway..

It appears that yes, this is the problem.

I need to consider a new appliance. Thanks Ian.

EDIT: I double checked the video and it seems that the high numbers are for id (which I assume means idle ??)

Are we sure that the CPU is being heavily loaded? If you have some time to explain to me what to observe, please do.

EDIT2: OK just observed in the video a 99% in si on CPU1. I assume this is what you were saying...

It is an old behavior, single connections are getting loaded to a single core. Therefore, most speed tests nowadays offers multi download speedtest per default. 

If you start another speedtest or another download of a file, it will be loaded to the second CPU etc. 

Thats the behavior for years (UTM and SFOS). 

Hi Chris,

if you watch the top of the display you will note that CPU1 idle drops to 0 a number of times in the video.

Ian

Thanks for the explanation, LuCar Toni !

The fact that a single speedtest, with traffic shaping enabled, overloads a CPU core is the problem, however. If a single test could go to 480-490 then I would be OK. However, even one speedtest taxes the CPu and can go up to about 300Mbits.

So I guess I am leaving shaping disabled for now and will look into upgrading my firewall appliance with something more powerful.

rfcat_vk : 

Yes I saw it.

Thanks again, Ian!

Just wanted to follow up on this issue.

So yesterday I tried setting up another appliance that I have, which has a Celeron N3350. The Celeron is newer and has better single core score than the Atom, but the Atom is faster overall. In fact, I replaced the Celeron with the Atom and since then, the GUI in not painfully slow anymore. However I needed to verify if the better single core performance of the Celeron would make any difference and how much.

And - what do you know - performing the same tests, I was still not getting the desired speeds from the Celeron (it was hitting 100%, too), but I got speeds of about 380Mbits.

So it is 100% certain that CPU is the limiting factor in my situation. I decommissioned the Celeron appliance again, though, because as mentioned, the GUI is painfully slow. The Atom loads the pages noticeably faster. 

I am in the process of ordering a mini PC with a bunch of Intel cards and an Intel N100 CPU. I am certain that N100 will be able to handle speeds even more than 1Gbit, so I will be OK for many years.

Thanks again for all that offered their help!

Make sure they are are not i219 or 225/6 series chips and there bios is NOT UEFI.

Ian

Oh, crap..

12th Gen 4xi226-V 2.5G Intel Firewall Mini PC N100 DDR5 4800MHz Fanless Soft Router

This is what it says in the description. The BIOS I assume would have legacy (not 100% certain, though), but the network cards are 226. Are those not supported yet?

But I assume there is always the option to install proxmox and create XG as a VM, right?

Correct on both counts.

Ian

Thanks again, Ian!

Thanks again, Ian!