Search results

I tested/compared for you. On an Intel NUC with i5, I don't have a VM so i cannot test identical. But i do have an LXC container. LXC -> LXC = 38Gbit/sec PFsense VM -> LXC = 2.95Gbit/sec Stepping it up to my big boy environment; A dedicated PFsense machine with a Xeon E-2236 and as Proxmox...

Virtualisation overhead. You're not going to get linespeed. What speed are you getting between VM's over a bridge?

You are not NAT'ing the way you are testing.

Like Gabriel mentioned, everything is running on CPU. Not a specialized ASIC packet handler. Don't expect to reach multi gbit speeds easily. Even my fastest pfsense box which is not virtualized "only" does about 5.5Gbit/sec sustained (Xeon E-2236, Chelsio T520-CR)

Allright. Issue found! On the original 2.5 setup, there was a traffic limiter of 300/10 configured on a guest VLAN interface. Worked as designed. Somewhere during the update to 2.6, this limiter somehow shifted to the WAN interface! I'm saying somehow because I don't know how. The limiter was...

Good point on the bios. The system had a 1000 days uptime so the bios is at least that old. I'll give the update a go. Both systems originally started on Pfsense 2.5 and have upgraded them to 2.6 and 2.7 along the way. Never noticed the issue on 2.5. Once we noticed the speed problem, we...

I have 2 identical scenarios. Intel NUC Celeron 2820 -> Proxmox8 -> PFsense 2.7 = OK. I reach the speed of the WAN connection (100/30mbit) Intel NUC i5 8259U -> Proxmox8 -> PFsense 2.7 = Not-OK. WAN is 1000/100 but only reaching 270/9mbit when traffic is NAT'ed Nothing is different between...

Did not help for me on PFsense. 900/100mbit internet line 9xx iperf test from LAN to PFsense VM However, NAT performance horrible at 270mbit down, 10mbit up

Also running into this issue. It seems it happens since PFsense 2.6. Same problem in 2.7. 2.5 was fine. iperf over LAN to pfsense = gbit internet directly on the ISP router but through my network/vlan = 900down/100up internet behind PFsense NAT = ~270down/9up Have not found the problem yet...

Found this topic again after trying to install Elastiflow via docker-compose in LXC so there are deff unresolved issues. Nesting is on in my container. root@elastiflow:~# docker-compose up -d Pulling flow-collector (elastiflow/flow-collector:5.3.4)... 5.3.4: Pulling from...

What is your workload? Ceph is not meant for small random io. Specially won't perform in a small 4 node cluster with spinning disks. It's meant for large clusters (12 nodes+, 12 OSD's+ per node) Also Mikrotik sucks. Your LACP bundle performance is probably suffering.

This problem still exists on Proxmox 7.1-8 with a Debian 11 container, trying to run Librenms via docker-compose Latest docker-ce from thier repo (5:20.10.11~3-0~debian-bullseye) and docker-compose (1.25.0-1)

With L1ARC: fio: (groupid=0, jobs=8): err= 0: pid=2351: Fri Dec 3 09:55:29 2021 write: IOPS=8595, BW=8595MiB/s (9013MB/s)(504GiB/60001msec); 0 zone resets slat (usec): min=102, max=83658, avg=604.06, stdev=1098.89 clat (usec): min=2, max=125231, avg=28851.81, stdev=11989.98 lat...

Thanks! That explains. What options do you recommend for some more realistic linear and random read/write performance like CrystalDiskMark or Atto does? As for ZFS and the CPU load. Sofar I think that overhead that ZFS requires (checksumming) simple necks the CPU. However, when enabling the...

What I also don't understand is why this command, ran on the proxmox host zfs pool directy only does about 35MB/sec fio --ioengine=libaio --filename=/pool/test --direct=1 --sync=1 --size=1GB--rw=write --bs=4K --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --name=fio

Hi Guys, I've setup one of my new servers today for some testing. Xeon Silver CPU 256GB DDR4 Samsung 1733 NVME drives As long as the VM is running on local lvm-thin type storage, the disk performance in the VM is blazing fast (7GB/sec read, 4GB/sec write) with low cpu load. As soon as I run...

I might have already answered my own question; https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=128843 https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=137267

Hi Guys, I am looking into some network issues i am having. On the daily use, no issues are noticable but when performing speedtests, I can clearly see speeds are dropping down to 300mbit/sec on gbit lines. Windows VM(virtio 10G NIC) to Windows VM(virtio 10G NIC) routed via PFsense VM (10G) on...

The only down side to consumer SSD's as far as i've noticed is the low replication performance when Ceph needs to move data around. Regarding to power failures: Chances are slim (dual feed, UPS etc) and the MX500 SSD's have some more inteligence regarding sudden power loss. This cluster not...

I understand your reaction and agree that that is the best practice to get the most performance out of Ceph and that the current solution is not optimal. However, i don't think this is the reason for the performance hit to just 500KB/sec. Especially not since all other benchmarks show pretty...