First I would switch the interfaces to see if em1 delivers the same low performance as em0 when used as WAN.
If that doesn't work, try installing new interfaces. You mentioned earlier that the colo told you to lock the WAN interface at 100Mb/full-duplex. Our ISP was doing the same thing for a while. Autonegotiate used to be unreliable especially when 10Mbit interfaces were common. Currently I am skeptical that the problem is on your end. Your error rate is not that high. Is your customer absolutely sure the colo didn't throttle their bandwidth? Also is the colo sure they know which switch port goes to your customer? On my last go-around with our ISP they kept changing the settings on the wrong switch port on their end. --cro > On Jan 11, 2016, at 06:46, Muhammad Yousuf Khan <[email protected]> wrote: > > em0@pci0:4:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x000015d9 chip=0x10968086 rev=0x01 > hdr=0x00 > class = network > subclass = ethernet > em1@pci0:4:0:1: class=0x020000 card=0x000015d9 chip=0x10968086 rev=0x01 > hdr=0x00 > class = network > subclass = ethernet > > We had a switch in b/w Pfsense and Colo uplink. we even removed that switch > and directly plug the cable with pfsense interface. but still getting the > same low bandwidth. > > is it a good idea. to install two new interfaces of 100Mbps and set them to > Auto instead of making it static 100Base TX full dublex out of Gig > Interfaces. ? > > Any help will be highly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Yousuf > > >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:03 PM, C. R. Oldham <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Re: pkg_add, try just 'pkg install' instead. >> >> Like Juan said, did you get them to try a different cable? Those errors >> are indicative of a bad Ethernet cable. >> >> Also, if the Ethernet chipset is a Realtek, there is a bug in the FreeBSD >> driver that affects auto negotiation with some switch hardware. >> >> --cro >> >> >>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 05:40, Muhammad Yousuf Khan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Here you go, yes there are error in the interfaces i can not get more >>> detail as i can not run the command pkg_add it is saying that command >> not >>> found however i know its a server board and it has two bultin LAN. 1 i am >>> using for WAN and For LAN. >>> here is CPU details. >>> >>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5440 @ 2.83GHz >>> 8 CPUs: 2 package(s) x 4 core(s) >>> >>> Any guide will be highly appreciated. >>> >>> WAN interface (wan, em0)StatusupMAC addressxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIPv4 >> address >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubnet masxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGateway >> IPv4xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIPv6 >>> Link Locaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> ISP DNS serversxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMTU1500Media100baseTX >> <full-duplex>In/out >>> packets3709795/2014620 (3.06 GB/551.84 MB)In/out packets >> (pass)3709795/2014620 >>> (3.06 GB/551.84 MB)In/out packets (block)90881/1 (6.59 MB/52 bytes)In/out >>> errors665/0Collisions0LAN interface (lan, em1)StatusupMAC address >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIPv4 addressxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubnet mask IPv4 >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIPv6 Link >>> LocalxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMTU1500Media100baseTX >>> <full-duplex>In/out packets1071425/2719703 (439.25 MB/2.78 GB)In/out >>> packets (pass)1071425/2719703 (439.25 MB/2.78 GB)In/out packets >> (block)2040/0 >>> (174 KB/0 bytes)In/out errors2140/0Collisions0 >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Juan Pablo <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, yes usually you should set 10/100/g to see when the link state >>>> changes, also if the auto protocol is not working or if the cable goes >> bad >>>> is easier to troubleshoot, have seen this on co-los worldwide. in any >>>> case, setting 10/100 etc shouldnt affect the bandwidth. so the question >>>> here is: which Nic you are using? is it supported? >>>> do you see any network issue/crc issue, alert/errors, or something onthe >>>> logs? via the web interface check if there are any error on the >> interface >>>> counters. >>>> also: check with ifconfig 'interface name' for crc errors, and the >>>> advertised speeds, paste here the full output of the problematic >> interface. >>>> >>>> >>>> let us know how it goes. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-01-11 3:23 GMT-03:00 Muhammad Yousuf Khan <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> I am remotely supporting one of my client who is using pfsense. i have >>>>> been using pfsense for years and never face such issue in this >>>>> experience, the Client Co-location is recommending to use 100BaseTX >> full >>>>> duplex setting instead of Auto. i do not know why they required that >>>> since >>>>> i am not in US i never observe this settings recommended by colo people >>>> in >>>>> my country. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------Server 1 >>>>> >>>>> / >>>>> colo switch-------->[WAN]pfsense[LAN]--------------+ >>>>> >>>>> \ >>>>> >>>>> -----------------Server 2 >>>>> >>>>> - iperf speed test for LAN, between is 50Mbps up and down >>>>> - but iperf test on WAN showing 10Mbps down and 5Mbps up. >>>>> - however my client is saying that assigned speed from colo is 100Mbps. >>>>> >>>>> now i can not find where is the issue. i suspect that issue is with >>>>> 100BaseTX setting. >>>>> >>>>> can anyone please guide me where i am doing wrong and what i can do to >>>> fix >>>>> this. >>>>> any help will be highly appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Yousuf >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> pfSense mailing list >>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>>>> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pfSense mailing list >>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>>> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pfSense mailing list >>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >> _______________________________________________ >> pfSense mailing list >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >> > _______________________________________________ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold _______________________________________________ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
