Obvious download speed degredation - Page 2

mdh · 12-13-2009, 07:23 PM

zal,

He definitely has RAM issues. Untangle NEEDS half a gig. A VM NEEDS around half a gig. An operating system needs vary depending on the OS. He doesn't have enough. Untangle apps do have a role as well...I'm not arguing that part BUT the apps don't matter if the box is choked in the first place. If Attack Blocker does slow it down, its pointing out problems in usage. Virus Blocker, Spam Blocker and Reports are known to slow things down under certain circumstances.

Right2Bear · 12-13-2009, 10:14 PM

Remember, this is running in VMWare 4 ESXi. It is not a low end machine. The server is a dual 3.4 Zeon processor with 6gb of Ram and mirrored hard drives. I don't have all of that allocated to UT but the hardware isn't the issue.

The nics are the 1gb HP nics that come with the server. Not cheap nics.

As a test, I configure another Windows VM to go directly out the nics without using any router and I got much faster speeds. Then I install Astaro and tried it. Same speed issue. Must be something in the Linux VMs or VMWare tools, (which wasn't install.)

I installed VMWare tools and it seems to have made a huge improvement. This is the instructions I used, but there are others on the forum...

http://forums.untangle.com/tip-day/9...gle-6-2-a.html

mdh · 12-13-2009, 10:23 PM

I thought you said 1GB RAM in an early post?!? Are you running Attack Blocker? Check the event logs. In the Untangle rack, look at the upper right corner to see how heavily the VM is being used too.

Right2Bear · 12-13-2009, 10:33 PM

The server - the vmware host - has 6gb. I allocated a little over 1gb to the UT vm.

mdh · 12-13-2009, 10:40 PM

OK. Depending on the load you have in your network, you may want to increase that to 1.5GB. I don't use VMs, but I understand that performance can degrade if you allocate too much, so there's definitely a sweet spot. I just don't know where exactly.

sky-knight · 12-14-2009, 01:04 AM

There is also a heavy price to pay if you have any VM work going over an interface shared with ESXi's management adapter. I wouldn't put Untangle into ESXi unless I had 3 interfaces... my ESXi 4 server runs Untangle great... but I have two interfaces. The only reason I put Untangle in there is testing, and the "lan" on those boxes is a virtual switch that isn't attached to a network card. So Untangle is just like another VM on the box, external gets out one of the interfaces to my real LAN. I reserved the other interface for management and iSCSI work.

dwasserman · 12-14-2009, 05:27 AM

To be fair we should compare a router/nat hardware, whit Untangle router only module instaled and running. No AV, no protocol block, no ids/ips, and so.
The underlying theory is "only take decision in layer 3, not read more deeper in the packet".
But , who put a dedicated server dual xeon, and etc to only router/nat?

BOFH · 12-14-2009, 08:51 AM

I'm guessing a config issue somewhere. I run UT on a DL380G5 and have personally moved 96 Mbit (not a misprint. .EDU here) of traffic through it. It isn't in a VM so you have that layer of complexity to deal with as well, but the box is capable. Really the only place that we have any trouble with UT is with the huge number of users we have. Everyone's best guess is that it is session related. *shrug* Good luck!

12-13-2009, 07:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
mdh Join Date: Aug 2007 URLs submitted: 171 Posts: 4,802	zal, He definitely has RAM issues. Untangle NEEDS half a gig. A VM NEEDS around half a gig. An operating system needs vary depending on the OS. He doesn't have enough. Untangle apps do have a role as well...I'm not arguing that part BUT the apps don't matter if the box is choked in the first place. If Attack Blocker does slow it down, its pointing out problems in usage. Virus Blocker, Spam Blocker and Reports are known to slow things down under certain circumstances. __________________ This space reserved for profound thought.....which does happen on occasion."

12-13-2009, 10:23 PM	#13 (permalink)
mdh Join Date: Aug 2007 URLs submitted: 171 Posts: 4,802	I thought you said 1GB RAM in an early post?!? Are you running Attack Blocker? Check the event logs. In the Untangle rack, look at the upper right corner to see how heavily the VM is being used too. __________________ This space reserved for profound thought.....which does happen on occasion."

12-13-2009, 10:40 PM	#15 (permalink)
mdh Join Date: Aug 2007 URLs submitted: 171 Posts: 4,802	OK. Depending on the load you have in your network, you may want to increase that to 1.5GB. I don't use VMs, but I understand that performance can degrade if you allocate too much, so there's definitely a sweet spot. I just don't know where exactly. __________________ This space reserved for profound thought.....which does happen on occasion."

12-14-2009, 01:04 AM	#16 (permalink)
sky-knight Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ URLs submitted: 8 Posts: 14,698	There is also a heavy price to pay if you have any VM work going over an interface shared with ESXi's management adapter. I wouldn't put Untangle into ESXi unless I had 3 interfaces... my ESXi 4 server runs Untangle great... but I have two interfaces. The only reason I put Untangle in there is testing, and the "lan" on those boxes is a virtual switch that isn't attached to a network card. So Untangle is just like another VM on the box, external gets out one of the interfaces to my real LAN. I reserved the other interface for management and iSCSI work. __________________ Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP Intouch Technology Phone: 480-272-9889 rob@intouchtechllc.com UntangleAppliances.com Phone: 866-794-8879

12-13-2009, 10:14 PM	#12 (permalink)
Right2Bear Untangler Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 37	Remember, this is running in VMWare 4 ESXi. It is not a low end machine. The server is a dual 3.4 Zeon processor with 6gb of Ram and mirrored hard drives. I don't have all of that allocated to UT but the hardware isn't the issue. The nics are the 1gb HP nics that come with the server. Not cheap nics. As a test, I configure another Windows VM to go directly out the nics without using any router and I got much faster speeds. Then I install Astaro and tried it. Same speed issue. Must be something in the Linux VMs or VMWare tools, (which wasn't install.) I installed VMWare tools and it seems to have made a huge improvement. This is the instructions I used, but there are others on the forum... http://forums.untangle.com/tip-day/9...gle-6-2-a.html

12-13-2009, 10:33 PM	#14 (permalink)
Right2Bear Untangler Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 37	The server - the vmware host - has 6gb. I allocated a little over 1gb to the UT vm.

12-14-2009, 05:27 AM	#17 (permalink)
dwasserman Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Argentina URLs submitted: 57 Posts: 3,561	To be fair we should compare a router/nat hardware, whit Untangle router only module instaled and running. No AV, no protocol block, no ids/ips, and so. The underlying theory is "only take decision in layer 3, not read more deeper in the packet". But , who put a dedicated server dual xeon, and etc to only router/nat?

12-14-2009, 08:51 AM	#18 (permalink)
BOFH Master Untangler Join Date: May 2009 Location: OKC, OK Posts: 132	I'm guessing a config issue somewhere. I run UT on a DL380G5 and have personally moved 96 Mbit (not a misprint. .EDU here) of traffic through it. It isn't in a VM so you have that layer of complexity to deal with as well, but the box is capable. Really the only place that we have any trouble with UT is with the huge number of users we have. Everyone's best guess is that it is session related. shrug Good luck!