cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrija Panic <andrija.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bandwidth performance problem - Virtual Router
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:43:48 GMT
For a meaningful test - you have to exclude external servers/internet and
disk subsystem etc (Microsoft one drive is sometimes unusably slow) -
please do proper testing with iperf utility, that only exercises network

there is iperf (afaik version 3?) available for both Windows and Linux

install it on windows
install it on that Windows' VR (call it VR1)
install it on yet another VR (this VR will mimi an external server in the
wild), stop the firewall there, or add a rule that allows traffic to the
specific iperf port used and start iperf server on that second VR
from Windows VM start iperf in client mode connecting to a iperf server on
both VRs - and compare apples to apples (i.e. not apples to oranges)
you can also experiment with outting all 3 VMS (windows VM, VR1 and VR2) on
the same host, or move them selectively, until you learn where the problem
is (if anywhere - perhaps just using One Drive is not the best test you can
do...)



Best,


On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 13:23, David González <david.gonzalez@jotelulu.com>
wrote:

> Hi Vivek,
>
> Thanks for your response. We have already check that configuration, and
> everything seems to be OK. For sample if you download o upload files
> to/from other external storage via Internet, the performance is much
> better. As per our testing, problems are only happens on OneDrive service.
>
> --
> David González
> Customer Success Manager
> david.gonzalez@jotelulu.com  |  jotelulu.com  |  +34 911 333 710
>
>
> De Conformidad con el Reglamento General de Protección de Datos (UE)
> 2016/679 de 27 de abril del 2016, y además normativa de desarrollo, le
> informamos que sus datos de carácter personal, cuya procedencia es
> directamente del interesado, con la finalidad de enviar comunicaciones
> comerciales, administrativas o técnicas sobre nuestros productos y/o
> servicios, con la legitimación de consentimiento del interesado, están
> siendo tratados por Jotelulu. Por favor, lea nuestra Declaración de
> Privacidad.
>
> Mensaje producido y distribuidor por JOTELULU. © 2018, JOTELULU. Todos los
> derechos reservados.
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Vivek Kumar <vivek.kumar@indiqus.com.INVALID>
> Enviado el: jueves, 12 de noviembre de 2020 12:09
> Para: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Asunto: Re: Bandwidth performance problem - Virtual Router
>
> Hello David,
>
> Can you check QoS on your VIF ( Virtual interface on your router ). So in
> XenServer QoS only works for egress traffic, I hope it works the same way
> in XCP-NG also . So Whenever your VM will initiate the traffic to outside
> of the world, First QoS on VM’s VIF will be applied and then you packet
> will go via router, QoS of VIF on router will be applied. (So whichever is
> less you will get the same)
>
> So if necessary  you can create custom offerings for your router and
> compute offering  with your desirable network rate and change the offering
> on your router and VM accordingly.  If your offerings doesn’t have any
> network rate defined, then it will use what you have defined in your global
> settings.
>
>
> Vivek Kumar
> Manager - Cloud & DevOps
> IndiQus Technologies
> 24*7  O +91 11 4055 1411  |   M +91 7503460090
> www.indiqus.com <http://indiqus.com/>
>
> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential
> and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the
> original message and any copy of it from your computer system. You are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited unless proper authorization has been
> obtained for such action. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify the sender immediately. Although IndiQus attempts to sweep
> e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that both are
> virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of
> viruses.
>
> > On 12-Nov-2020, at 4:26 PM, David González <david.gonzalez@jotelulu.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi anybody,
> >
> > I would like to explain an strange behavior in our cloudstack platform.
> >
> > We are getting very bad results in the bandwith performance when a
> Windows virtual machine is uploading o downloading any file from Microsoft
> OneDrive. After doing all test that we are able to do, we believe that the
> problem is located in virtual router, but we are not sure. For sample,
> using the same public IP assigned in a virtual router, directly to Windows
> server, bandwidth performance is Good (around 15-20MBps). But using the
> same public IP in virtual router, performance decrease to 500KBps. We used
> the same IP just to ensure that there was not any block in Microsoft side.
> This only seems to happen connecting to OneDrive, not to other sites.
> >
> > Firewall: Pfsense 2.4.4
> >
> > Cloudstack version: 4.11.2.0
> >
> > Virtualitation: XCP-ng 8.1
> >
> > Just to know if someone have any idea of why can be happening this.
> >
> > Thank you so much.
> >
> > --
> > David González
> > Customer Success Manager
> > david.gonzalez@jotelulu.com <mailto:david.gonzalez@jotelulu.com>  |
> jotelulu.com <http://www.jotelulu.com/>  |  +34 911 333 710
> >
> >
> > De Conformidad con el Reglamento General de Protección de Datos (UE)
> 2016/679 de 27 de abril del 2016, y además normativa de desarrollo, le
> informamos que sus datos de carácter personal, cuya procedencia es
> directamente del interesado, con la finalidad de enviar comunicaciones
> comerciales, administrativas o técnicas sobre nuestros productos y/o
> servicios, con la legitimación de consentimiento del interesado, están
> siendo tratados por Jotelulu. Por favor, lea nuestra Declaración de
> Privacidad.
> >
> > Mensaje producido y distribuidor por JOTELULU. © 2018, JOTELULU. Todos
> los derechos reservados.
>
>

-- 

Andrija Panić

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message