- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Fortigate 40F slow download - how to fix?
My download speed is 1GBit/s from the provider UPC here in Switzerland.
A PC (paviPC) attached to the providers connect box (CB, a DOCSIS router) gets about 900MBit/s.
This is what I am looking for.
(paviPC <-- CB/p4-CB/cable <-- cnlab speed test server)
I got a Fortigate 40F (FG) to play and connected lan3 (hardware switch) to port 3 of the UPC CB router.
Looking at the specs, the FG-40F should easily handle the 1GBit/s download speed. But it seems not to...
Any PC (elitePC, zoePC, paviPC) connected to lan3 of FG only gets about 130MBit/s download speed max.
(PC <-- FG/lan3<-FG/wan <-- CB/p3<-CB/wan <-- cnlab speed test server)
I do not have any fancy firewall policy enabled.Just plain all/all/all from inside to outside without any UTM features.
Why is this so slow and how can I speed it up?
I test the download speed with the cnlab speedtest application (https://www.cnlab.ch/speedtest) from different PC's (paviPC, zoePC, elitePC).
To check the port speeds, I did several speed tests with iperf3 using FG as a client, connecting to my 3 test PC's via the LAN port (i.e. diag traffictest run -c 192.168.1.204). On the PC's I downloaded iperf3 and started the server session.
Results:
- elitePC 333 MBit/s (Lots of retries, I believe the CAT5e cable is bad and I will exchange it soon)
- zoePC 580 MBit/s CAT 5e (no retrans errors, but I will replace this cable too)
- paviPC 736 MBit/s CAT6
To test the WAN port speed, I used paviPC as an iperf3 client and connected to FG (running the server iperf3 server) via a 1GB switch.
Result:
- paviPC 887 MBit/s CAT6
(same is also possible by using the -R option: diag traffictest run -R -c 192.168.0.50)
I conclude from this that the LAN cabling is not optimal, but far beyond just 120 MBit/s.
The Fortigate 40F is apparently stalling the connections, probably is the cause of the slow download.
I tried different settings on the FG to increase throughput
- checking duplex mismatch issues
- connection on WAN and lan3 port is 1000full (full-duplex), also tested with setting the interface mode from auto to 1000full
- connected via dumb switch to fix potential half-full-duplex issues
- double checked with "dia har dev nic wan" and "dia har dev nic lan3"
- cpu and memory load in FG is very low when doing speed tests
- reset FG completely and reconfigured
- FW version 6.4.8, fully under support with subscriptions, NGFW Mode = Profile-based
- no logging (same results with logging, though)
- played around with different MTU settings on wan side
- applied guaranteed bandwith (adapted https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Troubleshooting-Tip-Issue-with-outbound-upload-traffic-s... for download)
Nothing I tried so far was bumping the speed above 130 MBit/s.
What else could I try on the FG?
Thanks
Dan
References:
https://fusecommunity.fortinet.com/blogs/yuri1/2020/10/30/fortigate-built-in-iperf-tool-network-diag...
https://community.fortinet.com/t5/Fortinet-Forum/Slow-Internet/m-p/154183?m=164588
https://community.fortinet.com/t5/Fortinet-Forum/diagnose-traffictest/m-p/152702?m=146386
https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Technical-Tip-How-to-perform-bandwidth-tests/ta-p/197784...
https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Troubleshooting-Tip-Issue-with-outbound-upload-traffic-s...
https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/data-sheets/fortigate-fortiwifi-40f-series.pdf
- Labels:
-
FortiGate
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hello Dan,
Here are few places/ideas to check:
- policy mode: flow/proxy
- utm enabled or disabled in the policy (set utm disable)
- fragmentation: honor-df flag in settings if unnecessary fragmentation seen
- configuration: remove/unset internal switch
Ultimately, consider that the Datasheet values are cummulative, so a 600Mbps Threat protection is likely measured on a multi-thread/multiple ports test, with certain inspection profiles added. Last, but not least, the 40F is a small unit and lacks any dedicated NP processor that may speed up the connection - all traffic is handled by the SoC (CPU).
- Toss a 'Like' to your fixxer, oh Valley of Plenty! and chose the solution, too00oo -
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thanks Alex, I will try this tonight and give feedback.
So far:
- policy mode is flow
- utm is already disabled
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@AlexC-FTNT , I was not able to improve the speed significantly.
- policy mode: flow/proxy
- Policy mode is flow.
- utm enabled or disabled in the policy (set utm disable)
- No UTM configured and disabled
- I did not see any increase in speed.
- fragmentation: honor-df flag in settings if unnecessary fragmentation seen
- No fragmentation was seen. I anyway tried honot-df flag, but I did not see any improvement in speed.
- configuration: remove/unset internal switch
- I indeed had the LAN connect to the default switch of the FG. I moved the LAN connection over to a dedicated interface and tested again.
- No speed increase, unfortunately.
As this FG is under support, would it make sense to open a support ticket?
Dan
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
It makes sense to open a ticket for it so we can keep track of these issues, but it is likely that you will receive a similar reply after some troubleshooting data collected. As I also mentioned above, the speed may be significantly increased (or aproaching datasheet values) by using multiple parallel threads in iperf testing. So this is another test you could run (-P 4 / -P 6...)
- Toss a 'Like' to your fixxer, oh Valley of Plenty! and chose the solution, too00oo -
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi dan,
i have the same issue.
did you find a solution please ?
thanks
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
hi @diditn
in my case it turned out to be a stupid cabling issue. I should have seen that before, but I only catched it when I did the cabling of the whole rack from scratch.
Dan
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
thanks dan.
i will check the cables with CAT6 and try again.
thank you very much.
