SEO

Hello All,

I'm having a problem with an OBSD 3.3 box that's acting as a firewall
for my ADSL connection. Upload speeds are about 10% of what they are
when I plug a WinXP laptop directly into the DSL modem.

WinXP: 600/200 Kbps
OBSD: 600/20 Kbps

The machine has the following hardware:

cpu0: Intel Pentium III (Coppermine) ("GenuineIntel" 686-class, 128KB L2
cache) 565 MHz
real mem = 132423680 (129320K)
avail mem = 117112832 (114368K)

xl0 at pci1 dev 7 function 0 "3Com 3c905C 100Base-TX" rev 0x78: irq 9
address 00:01:02:3e:1c:3e exphy0 at xl0 phy 24: Broadcom 3C905C internal
PHY, rev. 7
xl1 at pci1 dev 8 function 0 "3Com 3c905C 100Base-TX" rev 0x78: irq 10
address 00:01:02:3e:1c:21 exphy1 at xl1 phy 24: Broadcom 3C905C internal
PHY, rev. 7

I have these sysctl parameters set:

net.inet.tcp.rfc1323 = 1
net.inet.tcp.keepinittime = 150
net.inet.tcp.keepidle = 14400
net.inet.tcp.keepintvl = 150
net.inet.tcp.slowhz = 2
net.inet.tcp.baddynamic = 587,749,750,751,760,761,871
net.inet.tcp.recvspace = 65535
net.inet.tcp.sendspace = 65535
net.inet.tcp.sack = 1
net.inet.tcp.mssdflt = 512
net.inet.tcp.rstppslimit = 100
net.inet.tcp.ackonpush = 0
net.inet.tcp.ecn = 0

ifconfig says:

xl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
status: active
inet6 xxxx::xxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
inet xx.xx.xx.xxnetmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx

xl1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
status: active
inet xx.xx.xx.xx netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
inet6 xxxx::xxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
inet xx.xx.xx.xxnetmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx

I've tried lowering the MTU values. I've also tried all of the available
media settings.

This is the output from top during the upload portion of a speed test:

load averages: 0.07, 0.09, 0.08 08:44:21
37 processes: 1 running, 36 idle
CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.8% interrupt,
99.2% idle
Memory: Real: 15M/34M act/tot Free: 86M Swap: 0K/512M used/tot

PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE WAIT TIME CPU COMMAND
12523 michael 2 0 440K 1300K sleep select 0:01 0.00% sshd
29597 root 2 0 356K 876K idle select 0:00 0.00% sshd
27970 squid 2 0 5048K 5112K sleep poll 0:00 0.00% squid
5994 dnscache 2 0 1348K 1576K idle poll 0:00 0.00% dnscache
28731 root 10 0 68K 312K sleep nanosl 0:00 0.00% svscan
11340 root 10 0 932K 736K idle wait 0:00 0.00% bash
25500 root 4 0 368K 252K sleep bpf 0:00 0.00% pflogd

I get the same results regardless of whether or not I'm filtering
traffic, or just passing everything.

Any ideas? I can post the full dmesg or whatever else -- I was just
trying to keep it as short as possible.

Thanks,
Michael

In article <xbKdnYAJMswlK9TcRVn-pA@centurytel.net>, Michael Cribbins wrote:

>I'm having a problem with an OBSD 3.3 box that's acting as a firewall
>for my ADSL connection. Upload speeds are about 10% of what they are
>when I plug a WinXP laptop directly into the DSL modem.
>
>WinXP: 600/200 Kbps
> OBSD: 600/20 Kbps

1512195 bytes sent in 47.9 secs (31 Kbytes/sec)
On a 486, 16Mb.

ne3: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX ,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:00:e8:83:4a:07
media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT)
inet 217.155.246.43 netmask 0xfffffff8 broadcast 217.155.246.47
inet6 fe80::200:e8ff:fe83:4a07%ne3 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
ep1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX ,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:50:04:34:6c:9e
media: Ethernet 10baseT
inet 192.168.XX.XX netmask 0xffffXXXX broadcast 192.168.XX.XX
inet6 fe80::250:4ff:fe34:6c9e%ep1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3

--
Elvis Notargiacomo master AT barefaced DOT cheek
http://www.notatla.org.uk/goen/
My energy-saving light bulb caught fire. Now I know
the NSA are beaming microwaves at my flat.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:52:02 -0700, Michael Cribbins wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I'm having a problem with an OBSD 3.3 box that's acting as a firewall
> for my ADSL connection. Upload speeds are about 10% of what they are
> when I plug a WinXP laptop directly into the DSL modem.

> xl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
> status: active
> inet6 xxxx::xxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
> inet xx.xx.xx.xxnetmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
>
> xl1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
> status: active
> inet xx.xx.xx.xx netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
> inet6 xxxx::xxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
> inet xx.xx.xx.xxnetmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx

Perhaps you should leave sysctl.conf alone and allow the NICs to autoneg
just as the Windoze system does. I rather doubt that your ADSL modem is
capable of 100BaseTX.

Dave Uhring wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:52:02 -0700, Michael Cribbins wrote:
>
>>xl1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>
> Perhaps you should leave sysctl.conf alone and allow the NICs to autoneg
> just as the Windoze system does. I rather doubt that your ADSL modem is
> capable of 100BaseTX.
>

Isn't that what autoselect does?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:28:05 -0700, Michael Cribbins wrote:

> Dave Uhring wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:52:02 -0700, Michael Cribbins wrote:
>>
>>>xl1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>>> address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
>>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>>
>> Perhaps you should leave sysctl.conf alone and allow the NICs to autoneg
>> just as the Windoze system does. I rather doubt that your ADSL modem is
>> capable of 100BaseTX.
>>
>
> Isn't that what autoselect does?

It should. Does it?

What does Windows say about the connection when you use that POS?

Dave Uhring wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:52:02 -0700, Michael Cribbins wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I'm having a problem with an OBSD 3.3 box that's acting as a firewall
>> for my ADSL connection. Upload speeds are about 10% of what they are
>> when I plug a WinXP laptop directly into the DSL modem.
>
>> xl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>> status: active
>> inet6 xxxx::xxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>> inet xx.xx.xx.xxnetmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
>>
>> xl1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>> status: active
>> inet xx.xx.xx.xx netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
>> inet6 xxxx::xxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
>> inet xx.xx.xx.xxnetmask 0xffffff00 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
>
> Perhaps you should leave sysctl.conf alone and allow the NICs to
> autoneg
> just as the Windoze system does. I rather doubt that your ADSL modem
> is capable of 100BaseTX.

Me too. I even doubt that auto negotiation works properly. Fix it to 10
Mb/s half duplex. Eg the old Alcatels speedtouch home won't do any
better than that.

But indeed, don't start messing with sysctl's until it just works well.
There is really no need to do so.

EJ
--
Remove the obvious part (including the dot) for my email address.
http://www.vanwesten.net for examples of ipf and pf.

In article <414a8e56$0$78753$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl>,
erik@geenspam.vanwesten.net says...
....
> >
> > Perhaps you should leave sysctl.conf alone and allow the NICs to
> > autoneg
> > just as the Windoze system does. I rather doubt that your ADSL modem
> > is capable of 100BaseTX.
>
> Me too. I even doubt that auto negotiation works properly. Fix it to 10
> Mb/s half duplex. Eg the old Alcatels speedtouch home won't do any
> better than that.
>


Is there no upside at all to full duplex ?

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:49:24 -0700, George Pontis wrote:

> Is there no upside at all to full duplex ?

Yes, there certainly is. Packet collisions never occur. However the
devices at *both* ends of the cable must be configured at full duplex.

A duplex mismatch will cause the exact problem noted by the OP.

Dave Uhring wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:49:24 -0700, George Pontis wrote:
>
>> Is there no upside at all to full duplex ?
>
> Yes, there certainly is. Packet collisions never occur.

Packet collisions are not necessarily evil. Not at all. They are there
by design. And an adsl connection won't get faster if you would use
full duplex... :-)

> However the
> devices at *both* ends of the cable must be configured at full duplex.
>
> A duplex mismatch will cause the exact problem noted by the OP.

Exactly.

EJ
--
Remove the obvious part (including the dot) for my email address.
http://www.vanwesten.net for examples of ipf and pf.

Well, I have the problem solved. Turns out that I needed an education on
PPPoE overhead as it relates to MTU. Living out in the sticks most of my
life, DSL is all new to me.

I had stated in my original post that I had tried lowering the MTU. That
was true, but what I failed to mention (and probably should have) was
that when I lowered it to 1460, the kernel crashed. I figured out
later that that was probably due to the fact that PF was enabled with
'scrub out all fragment reassemble' when I did that. I have since
learned that you want to flush the rules, change the MTU, then reload
the rules.

So, even though the modem is handling PPPoE -- I still needed to set the
MTU to 1492 on the OBSD machine. All is as it should be now. (600/200)

Thanks for the input.

Michael

Michael Cribbins wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm having a problem with an OBSD 3.3 box that's acting as a firewall
> for my ADSL connection. Upload speeds are about 10% of what they are
> when I plug a WinXP laptop directly into the DSL modem.
>