Skip to content

IPv4 VPN pfSense tests

Looking at Windscribe VPN and wondering how much crypto capability impacts VPN conneciton. One thing I noticed while doing this is that Windscribe seems to load-balance heavily in the Texas area. My IP address would change pretty much with each connection.

First, here’s Windscribe connecting through the IP 75.126.39.93 (SoftLayer). This is a really fast test.

And here’s CPU usage during this test:

procs memory page disks faults cpu
r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr md0 md1 in sy cs us sy id
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 1457 178 5129 0 2 98
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 11709 262 26320 0 22 78
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 6260 139 14965 0 10 90
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 1 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1219 239 4640 0 2 98
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1636 266 5506 0 3 97
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 1454 0 0 0 1567 14 1 0 1150 1029 4528 6 3 92
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 1 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1598 238 5377 0 1 98
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1393 144 4923 0 2 98
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 6 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 2944 7754 10633 3 8 88
1 0 0 1296M 3473M 2 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 3340 10100 12767 4 10 87
0 0 0 1317M 3473M 5437 0 0 14 7392 14 2 1 2951 18436 11436 10 20 70
1 0 0 1296M 3473M 8205 0 0 6 9723 14 0 0 2675 8229 10085 5 13 82
0 0 0 1296M 3473M 11 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 2084 4658 8562 2 4 95

Now, with hardware encryption via cryptodev driver. Note that this time, I’m connected via 173.208.68.218 (Nobis Technology Group).

procs memory page disks faults cpu
r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr md0 md1 in sy cs us sy id
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 2 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 326 276 2849 0 0 99
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 1 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 7242 275 17068 0 15 85
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 9 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 7491 352 17579 0 11 89
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 2766 360 7814 0 3 97
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 1 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 2829 139 7868 0 4 96
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 2018 294 6275 0 2 98
2 0 0 1292M 3472M 2810 0 0 12 3783 14 0 0 987 3296 4316 2 5 94
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 10787 0 0 9 13251 14 1 2 1576 12830 5953 9 15 76
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 2 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 1386 245 4937 0 1 99
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 2 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1698 171 5529 0 2 97
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 3 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1599 285 5395 0 2 98
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1486 213 5148 0 1 99
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 513 758 3392 1 1 99
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 10 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 567 1576 3806 1 2 97
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 187 627 2705 0 1 98
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 1447 0 0 0 1566 15 1 0 63 1098 2376 5 2 92
0 0 0 1291M 3472M 2 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 53 219 2277 0 0 100

There’s a modest decrease in the CPU usage (particularly user and system).

Finally, here’s a Comcast XFinity speed test. Note that this test runs twice: once for Ipv4 and once for IPv6


procs memory page disks faults cpu
r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr md0 md1 in sy cs us sy id
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 452 0 0 1 550 5 0 0 244 766 2625 1 1 98
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 19 94 2130 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 7 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 40 211 2177 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 58 94 2210 0 0 99
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 10553 86 23681 0 17 82
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 464 0 0 0 620 14 1 9 14639 735 32217 0 23 77
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 5 14529 87 31823 0 21 79
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 14634 142 32066 0 22 78
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 14556 89 31951 0 23 77
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 9084 87 20645 0 13 87
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 52 93 2191 0 1 99
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 26 86 2132 0 1 99
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1109 138 4317 0 1 99
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2115 85 6321 0 3 97
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2030 97 6164 0 2 98
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 1 2144 84 6385 0 3 97
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2322 84 6738 0 3 97
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 3 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 1353 161 4815 0 2 98
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1442 0 0 0 1568 13 1 0 18 964 2204 6 2 92
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 5 86 2097 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 4 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 4052 95 10416 0 8 92
0 0 0 1295M 3476M 4952 0 0 13 6745 13 1 0 14211 10939 32191 7 36 57
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 8208 0 0 6 9728 13 1 0 14144 4136 32017 3 32 64
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 14288 84 31540 0 21 79
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 4 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 14125 95 31417 0 25 75
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13866 86 30744 0 24 76
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 465 145 3040 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 18 88 2121 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 203 89 2492 0 1 99
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 2275 102 6647 0 2 98
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 2244 88 6588 0 2 98
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2270 141 6646 0 2 98
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2266 92 6634 0 3 97
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 2192 92 6487 0 3 97
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 8 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 158 124 2410 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 6 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 58 116 2205 0 0 100
0 0 0 1274M 3476M 2 0 0 0 0 13 1 9 18 146 2138 0 0 100

These results weren’t as conclusive as I’d like. For example, I got wildly varying results using the VPN when I retested. In some cases, the CPU usage was close to 40% (even with hardware crypto). I also think that the result above with hardware crypto isn’t apples-to-apples since the resulting data rates were lower (likely congestion outside of the VPN), and that’s likely limiting the taxation on the crypto—the crypto never gets exercise to the extend of the first test.

10 people like this post.

Unlike
Post a comment — Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry (permalink) was posted on Monday, October 17, 2016, at 6:14 am by PoojanWagh. Filed in Networking and tagged , , , , .

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*