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=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 3F501C43381 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:30:40 +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 CDD46208E4 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:30:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dSGhTUiz" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CDD46208E4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com 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 6598c6cc; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 40e8c8e9 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 03:59:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 641fc632 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 03:59:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id j36so30321831qta.7 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 20:09:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kuy/qITyM2W+CweWI+FRSqEvLhwQuEU46Vd6tbFubXE=; b=dSGhTUizUmbnX/Trvz4Kjms+VaFSp6J9nOjiQ+Eif4fbT1o0bnSrX+wJi/iyAKaIG6 sxZ33snSe2pFNKCqpRMnlp8wInhoD3RnZWu3xIMzSoOMZkePgdE26yzFjICeE6rcBCcf 6CBXy2JGHkmv+oCbWGEXajaQomaRCcp0YMFcn6Rkw5ZacyTPYOyCZP3upxgD+IkbYjRw Z1TsrkDzKsOtm5dPKVe+8NEJNmsYtigzGtGeAx9Ss17/x8Y0tg4VsLZuG09uEUZVqRS3 cQgqSmuE10++ZByeVD+W/GR9fYIO+8vNrL2GZG+Ra09l5udODoUJoD5A1Cif1o8G2gNr 7BUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kuy/qITyM2W+CweWI+FRSqEvLhwQuEU46Vd6tbFubXE=; b=tFS32nBI8ErYhZPvZRQT6sLKjwNaWo0TkRi2tTvXw3VQtBGWFV704ebg+W9ylG8TOd GJMdeQtvoHrrmOnFiFSpyHvmuTPVi12+h3MemtrHYLAN4qEAr65JV+xvEHMqYwkikdE+ ZSUg7qUfBTl/RLwISXP/2VBrilFr5IvfpqHNAhK9+AN4+3pFFuM7gGBnFahB13TKqwsJ faqbuqTaTcyWfSfxxAnWjKnxBmNWT+904pY8kbw19uf7BNu8mIaSIjx5qtCxJfyJgVhj K/3fogvXEqYbbLSsB/98gVeHkDvHplCweQ7YplwfOvlLdhC6SXvxZQqfrnadEHddtI9L xJEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUsyEzLyD7KcsmBHa+nFxyJA05921ZXaY7Myf93iCBVVnQlraLW Ho0tbSXYCXb6y8ccuCVsFDhqIbfttxwJqNLfOqM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyxHAim2MpsrgDnNbaJb7FLCEOCejptbXvEKry1u0y3lJr5Puf3QX0R+qiitwHZsZq31lEIUzW6a+TqU+fHtI0= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1c0e:: with SMTP id a14mr6572858qtk.259.1551499750500; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 20:09:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Scott Lipcon Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:08:23 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: performance query To: Kalin KOZHUHAROV X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 16:18:46 +0100 Cc: WireGuard mailing list 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="===============9025082848546393954==" Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" --===============9025082848546393954== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f6ee3058314afc2" --0000000000007f6ee3058314afc2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for the suggestions - I'll need to do some more experimentation when I get back in the office, but I think you're on to something, perhaps with the router at Location B in my examples. I did a straight UDP speed test with iperf3, and that worked fine - over 500Mbit/sec - there shouldn't be anything funny with MTU going on, nor any IPv6... however I did two additional tests: At my main location, I've got another "low end" box on the same local network as the "server" - this one is an intel Atom CPU - with that I was able to get about 585Mbit/sec (compared to the 930-940 without wireguard). I've got a 3rd location available - actually a low end VM on AWS - this one gets around 300Mbit unencrypted, and actually tested above that via wireguard - I assume thats just normal fluctuation, but seems to point the finger to something specific at location B, my office. I'll continue to investigate and update if I figure anything out... it'll probably be at least a week before I get anywhere though, due to work travel. Thanks again, Scott On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 5:18 AM Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:11 AM Scott Lipcon wrote: > > > > I've been experimenting a bit with Wireguard on several ubuntu systems, > and am not seeing the performance I'd expect based on the numbers at > https://www.wireguard.com/performance/ > > > > I'm wondering if there is a configuration setting i'm missing or any > better way to debug this. > > > > Testing between two locations - both have nominally 1Gbit internet > connections from the same provider. > > > > At location A: > > 1) Ubuntu 18.04 "server" - i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz > > 2) Ubuntu 16.04 client - i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz > > > > At location B: > > 3) Ubuntu 18.04 client - Celeron N2808 @ 1.58GHz > > 4) Ubuntu 18.04 client - Virtual Machine - Xeon(R) Gold 6126 CPU @ > 2.60GHz > > > > > > Using iperf3 for all tests, with 8 threads, but that doesn't seem to > matter significantly. > > > > Between 1 & 2, via gigabit LAN - 940 Mbit/sec. > > Between 1 & 2, via WireGuard - 585 Mbit/sec > > - I might have expected a bit higher, but this is certainly acceptable. > > > > Between 3 and 1, direct iperf3 - 580 Mbit/sec > > Between 3 and 1, WireGuard - 73 Mbit/sec > > > > At this point I was guessing WireGuard was CPU limited on this little > Celeron, so I set up the Xeon VM (#4): > > > > Between 4 and 1, direct iperf3 - ~600 Mbit/sec > > Between 4 and 1, WireGuard - 80 Mbit/sec > > > > In other words, the much faster VM is only a tiny bit faster that the > celeron. > > > > Any suggestions? > > A lot can go wrong speed-wise "on the Internet"... > > What sits in between those hosts that you have control of (routers, > switches, firewalls...)? > IPv6 involved at all? > ISP having throttling policy for "UDP we don't understand"? > Play with the MTU, you might be hitting some fragmentation issues that > a weak router is not handling fast enough. > Play with Wireshark (new 3.0 even has support for wireguard > protocol!), capture some traffic, look for any transmission errors. > > Cheers, > Kalin. > --0000000000007f6ee3058314afc2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the suggestions - I'll need to do some m= ore experimentation when I get back in the office, but I think you're o= n to something, perhaps with the router at Location B in my examples.=C2=A0= =C2=A0 I did a straight UDP speed test with iperf3, and that worked fine -= over 500Mbit/sec - there shouldn't be anything funny with MTU going on= , nor any IPv6... however I did two additional tests:

= At my main location, I've got another "low end" box on the sa= me local network as the "server" - this one is an intel Atom CPU = - with that I was able to get about 585Mbit/sec (compared to the 930-940 wi= thout wireguard).=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0

I've got a 3r= d location available - actually a low end VM on AWS - this one gets around = 300Mbit unencrypted, and actually tested above that via wireguard - I assum= e thats just normal fluctuation, but seems to point the finger to something= specific at location B, my office.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I'll continue to inves= tigate and update if I figure anything out... it'll probably be at leas= t a week before I get anywhere though, due to work travel.

Thanks again,
Scott


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 = at 5:18 AM Kalin KOZHUHAROV <me.ka= lin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:11 AM Scott Lipcon <slipcon@gmail.com> wrote:<= br> >
> I've been experimenting a bit with Wireguard on several ubuntu sys= tems, and am not seeing the performance I'd expect based on the numbers= at https://www.wireguard.com/performance/
>
> I'm wondering if there is a configuration setting i'm missing = or any better way to debug this.
>
> Testing between two locations - both have nominally 1Gbit internet con= nections from the same provider.
>
> At location A:
> 1) Ubuntu 18.04 "server" - i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
> 2) Ubuntu 16.04 client - i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz
>
> At location B:
> 3) Ubuntu 18.04 client - Celeron N2808=C2=A0 @ 1.58GHz
> 4) Ubuntu 18.04 client - Virtual Machine - Xeon(R) Gold 6126 CPU @ 2.6= 0GHz
>
>
> Using iperf3 for all tests, with 8 threads, but that doesn't seem = to matter significantly.
>
> Between 1 & 2, via gigabit LAN - 940 Mbit/sec.
> Between 1 & 2, via WireGuard - 585 Mbit/sec
> - I might have expected a bit higher, but this is certainly acceptable= .
>
> Between 3 and 1, direct iperf3 - 580 Mbit/sec
> Between 3 and 1, WireGuard - 73 Mbit/sec
>
> At this point I was guessing WireGuard was CPU limited on this little = Celeron, so I set up the Xeon VM (#4):
>
> Between 4 and 1, direct iperf3 - ~600 Mbit/sec
> Between 4 and 1, WireGuard - 80 Mbit/sec
>
> In other words, the much faster VM is only a tiny bit faster that the = celeron.
>
> Any suggestions?

A lot can go wrong speed-wise "on the Internet"...

What sits in between those hosts that you have control of (routers,
switches, firewalls...)?
IPv6 involved at all?
ISP having throttling policy for "UDP we don't understand"? Play with the MTU, you might be hitting some fragmentation issues that
a weak router is not handling fast enough.
Play with Wireshark (new 3.0 even has support for wireguard
protocol!), capture some traffic, look for any transmission errors.

Cheers,
Kalin.
--0000000000007f6ee3058314afc2-- --===============9025082848546393954== 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 --===============9025082848546393954==--