From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1B8C04AAB for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 20:28:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5DE620830 for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 20:28:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A5DE620830 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=iki.fi Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2d8d484c; Mon, 6 May 2019 20:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e86d8b7d for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt1-f170.google.com (mail-qt1-f170.google.com [209.85.160.170]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id d01f2d47 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f170.google.com with SMTP id f13so1187209qto.6 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:20:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=S7JcrLnpQoYx9HvrFSyZ81m898FzbHS9EU7LXrGGSNI=; b=WySQRtBUFj5Y01otIiMR+CF2wsKp4uHLxWedgYfFVmaPEO1Na9INaj0PDU/Qz2lLYi TMFgELpteAX4pzQE1G4RmCCR5gFQ3u6+0+pQqyDEtXASB1NAcrr8kQJYkx6jpKhHnaiq DT6bMETYlYb93UCHCiwJPJ4nzlZ7pFlzbvViUfx+tcNjJ2zAt2saqTFS+9c2v2jjoCg4 6UkwLhNFB7yyWaIlNU9+aw2tXsBLmN5teINOPy2odlMJcyvV/u+9t4C/362XMJ+CC2cv RkLUIKlxXjmbPteAJ2Bg7piX4phdAIsb85V3btzf8dy3Knam8e7AkZxZrZnB7Il/89SZ hs5A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUp58BjTks05MuZ3hJnJfypATi23yMqEDZ697SZmLTvsPx+Yko2 shDzmBKxRP07Vn5x/xYdq86F7KtGAqk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyFL0yJLaBK7/JX2OHJ5BgGbQDMPYiXQiYDmHfEW6qxkLhRHRFa8HEiC9mQYb9vaAwJ5KC8ew== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4547:: with SMTP id z7mr77484715qtn.295.1555582826229; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com (mail-qt1-f176.google.com. [209.85.160.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e4sm829879qtb.61.2019.04.18.03.20.25 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id k14so1588491qtb.0 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ac8:325c:: with SMTP id y28mr80305239qta.40.1555582825495; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:20:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jari Tenhunen Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:20:14 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Very modest performance observed on macOS To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 May 2019 22:28:35 +0200 X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1388282142612047465==" Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" --===============1388282142612047465== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb84f70586cb59ea" --000000000000bb84f70586cb59ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, I experimented with WireGuard on a 13" MacBook Pro (2018, core i5) and was surprised to see that all implementations running on macOS (WireGuard app from App Store, Boringtun, and WireGuard-go) achieved a max throughput of only 80-100 Mbit/s. And what is even more strange, when running these same implementations in a Linux container on Docker (on the same machine, against the same peer), the performance is clearly better, close to 150 Mbit/s. In the latter case, it is probably limited by the peer HW performance (Raspberry Pi 3B), so it could be even higher. I got these throughput numbers by running iperf inside the tunnel. Do you have any idea what is limiting the performance on macOS? Inefficient utun driver? BR, Jari --000000000000bb84f70586cb59ea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I experimented wit= h WireGuard on a 13" MacBook Pro (2018, core i5) and was surprised to = see that all implementations running on macOS (WireGuard app from App Store= , Boringtun, and WireGuard-go) achieved a max throughput of only 80-100 Mbi= t/s. And what is even more strange, when running these same implementations= in a Linux container on Docker (on the same machine, against the same peer= ), the performance is clearly better, close to 150 Mbit/s.=C2=A0 In the lat= ter case, it is probably limited by the peer HW performance (Raspberry Pi 3= B), so it could be even higher. I got these throughput numbers by running i= perf inside the tunnel.

Do you have any idea what = is limiting the performance on macOS? Inefficient utun driver?

BR,
Jari
--000000000000bb84f70586cb59ea-- --===============1388282142612047465== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard --===============1388282142612047465==--