Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:47:07 +0000
From:      James Lodge <James@Lodge.me.uk>
To:        "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Jail - PF - NAT - Network Performance
Message-ID:  <VI1PR06MB10378E0DC73518F6A4571531F9240@VI1PR06MB1037.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF61454E-408E-432F-8822-39353632CA90@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <VI1PR06MB1037187D07A9C500B3E4E791F9240@VI1PR06MB1037.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>, <DF61454E-408E-432F-8822-39353632CA90@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 25 Oct 2015, at 17:46, James Lodge <James@Lodge.me.uk> wrote:
> I currently have a FreeBSD 10.1 host running on Digital Ocean. I have mul=
tiple jails and I'm not using vimage.
>
>
> I'm using PF on the host to NAT traffic from said jails and all is workin=
g as expected. I have a jail running OpenVPN and clients can connect and tr=
affic is routed to the Internet down the tunnel via PF/NAT. The issue I'm s=
eeing is download speeds to the client from the Internet on the external si=
de on PF. Upload always seem reasonable, but download is always woeful. I'm=
 using a Windows machine as the client if that make any odds.
>
>Yeah, there=92s an issue with checksums and pf/Xen.
>Disabling TSO should work for you (sudo sysctl net.inet.tcp.tso=3D0), and =
the problem should be completely fixed in the >next release (10.3 or 11.0)
>
>Regards,
>Kristof


Thanks Kristof for the quick reply,

I was hoping it would be that simple, but Digital Ocean use KVM (from what =
I know) as their hypervisor so disabling TSO and LRO seems to have no notic=
ed increase in performance.=20

Regards
James=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?VI1PR06MB10378E0DC73518F6A4571531F9240>