Can AirVPN handle 1Gbps connection?

[Anonymous_13 31]

Soon I'll get a 1Gbps connection. Does anyone even tried if any or AirVPN server can handle that at decent speed?

[zhang888 1065]

This is not about the server, it's about your CPU mostly.

As you can see some users are able to get 200Mbit/s on the status page, which is about the peak

limit for most high end CPUs and OpenVPN over WAN connection.

Maybe in the future versions it will improve by multi-core support, but I doubt it will do much help

in the WAN scope - most, if not all ISPs will shape traffic that has the same 4-tuple (srcip:srcport<->dstip:dstport)

and go beyond a certain amount of packets per second. This saves lots of bandwidth (=money) and abuse.

[foxmulder 43]

In consequence this would mean that you would use an entire server on your own, should you be able to max out your connection...

 

I don't know AIRs stance when it comes to the concept of fair usage. But as there are plenty of fast servers, i can imagine that they won't bother.

[kdudic 0]

well then i am lucky  one couse i get this Hasseleh server..   

 

 

[Anonymous_13 31]

well then i am lucky  one couse i get this Hasseleh server.. 

 

What's the hardware? I've been reading much (and much is old anyway) and it says that OpenVPN is signle threaded but possible to reach 1gbps with decent processor. But it doesn't say what decent is.

[Staff 9751]

 

well then i am lucky  one couse i get this Hasseleh server.. 

 

What's the hardware? I've been reading much (and much is old anyway) and it says that OpenVPN is signle threaded but possible to reach 1gbps with decent processor. But it doesn't say what decent is.

 

Hello,

 

it's  very important (at least for our setup) that the processor supports AES-New Instructions. The performance boost per core is dramatic if compared to a processor not supporting AES-NI.

 

This article below is very interesting to optimize VPN servers in an attempt to squeeze almost 1 Gbit/s from one core and it can be useful even for clients.

 

On the server side the task becomes even more difficult with multiple clients, because it seems from our empirical experience that the needed processing power does not grow linearly with the amount of connected OpenVPN clients (it apparently varies with some faster-than-linear growth). At least, on the client side you can ignore this problem.

 

https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/Gigabit_Networks_Linux

 

Kind regards

[Anonymous_13 31]

No idea why I am on moderator queue so I cannot edit my previously sent reply. However I just want to say that by following the guide you provided I raised my speed from 13mb/s to 20mb/s which is currently my maximum. Once I get 1gbps next month I'll report back.

Unlike the clients of other vpn providers the airvpn client at least is very customizable.

[LZ1 662]

No idea why I am on moderator queue so I cannot edit my previously sent reply. However I just want to say that by following the guide you provided I raised my speed from 13mb/s to 20mb/s which is currently my maximum. Once I get 1gbps next month I'll report back.

Unlike the clients of other vpn providers the airvpn client at least is very customizable.

Hello!

 

All new users are on that queue. It depends on your posts, not the length of time you've been here. Infringers will also find themselves queued.

 

I hope you'll follow along with a comparable hardware upgrade!

 

Sent to you from me with datalove

[Valerian 20]

Well, Anonymous_13 has 72 posts, so it can't be because he's a newbie.

[kraecker 0]

I have a 300/300 mbit/s connection and can almost max it out on the NL servers. I use the Eddie client on a i7 Macbook Pro.

[flat4 79]

 

 

well then i am lucky  one couse i get this Hasseleh server.. 

 

What's the hardware? I've been reading much (and much is old anyway) and it says that OpenVPN is signle threaded but possible to reach 1gbps with decent processor. But it doesn't say what decent is.

 

Hello,

 

it's  very important (at least for our setup) that the processor supports AES-New Instructions. The performance boost per core is dramatic if compared to a processor not supporting AES-NI.

 

This article below is very interesting to optimize VPN servers in an attempt to squeeze almost 1 Gbit/s from one core and it can be useful even for clients.

 

On the server side the task becomes even more difficult with multiple clients, because it seems from our empirical experience that the needed processing power does not grow linearly with the amount of connected OpenVPN clients (it apparently varies with some faster-than-linear growth). At least, on the client side you can ignore this problem.

 

https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/Gigabit_Networks_Linux

 

Kind regards

good reading, I dont have gigabit speed, but recently found out that my onboard chip does not do AES, i have pfsense telling it does, however for not having the AES on the chip i get decent DL and UL speed. Imagine what i can get of i had a capable chip.

[Anonymous_13 31]

Today I got my 1gbps and this is what I get after customization of airvpn client settings:

 

 

OpenVPN cpu usage is 6%. I felt like more should be possible as the airvpn server is 1gbps and only 6% bandwith is used and steam servers are able to handle 100MB/s. But 33MB/s is still a decent value. Tried a few other competitors but the speed was worser than on AirVPN. If someone has an idea what can be tuned let me know.

These are my current settings:

 

UDP protocol

Custom directives:

tun-mtu 6000

fragment 0

mssfix 0

[go558a83nk 352]

 

Today I got my 1gbps and this is what I get after customization of airvpn client settings:

 

 

OpenVPN cpu usage is 6%. I felt like more should be possible as the airvpn server is 1gbps and only 6% bandwith is used and steam servers are able to handle 100MB/s. But 33MB/s is still a decent value. Tried a few other competitors but the speed was worser than on AirVPN. If someone has an idea what can be tuned let me know.

These are my current settings:

 

UDP protocol

Custom directives:

tun-mtu 6000

fragment 0

mssfix 0

 

31.3MB/s is 250mbit/s and about the fastest you'll see in the top users section.  Did you test different tun-mtu values?

[flat4 79]

 

Today I got my 1gbps and this is what I get after customization of airvpn client settings:

 

 

OpenVPN cpu usage is 6%. I felt like more should be possible as the airvpn server is 1gbps and only 6% bandwith is used and steam servers are able to handle 100MB/s. But 33MB/s is still a decent value. Tried a few other competitors but the speed was worser than on AirVPN. If someone has an idea what can be tuned let me know.

These are my current settings:

 

UDP protocol

Custom directives:

tun-mtu 6000

fragment 0

mssfix 0

what are you current stats out of the tunnel, just curious?

[Anonymous_13 31]

Outside of tunnel:

 

 

Peak shows it. But with 1gbps you need to find a speed test that is able to deal with the speed.

 

 

Anyway as you see my stats outside of tunnel are at least twice as fast.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Sweden server (6% usage) with airvpn, MTU 8000:

 

 

Same sweden (6% usage) server with airvpn, MTU 6000:

 

 

And now I get no more than 1,5Mbps on nearly all servers, weird.

[Staff 9751]

Sweden server (6% usage) with airvpn, MTU 8000:

 

 

What MTU do you refer to? tun MTU is 1500 bytes and can't be modified unilaterally, of course. Ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes as well, are you in a jumbo-frames supporting network? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_transmission_unit

 

Kind regards

[Anonymous_13 31]

Hm without VPN:

 

with VPN:

 

I've removed all custom directives. My settings:

 

 

 

After changing MTU in airvpn client from 6000 to 8000 I got this issue. Changing it back however did not removed the problem. Now I have a VPN speed with 1,3MB/s at maximum. My ISP isn't throttling they clearly say on their website they allow (open)VPN, also changing port from 443 to 80 didn't do anything.

@Staff: I was refering to openVPN MTU (custom directives). TCP Analyzer says my ethernet MTU is 1500.

[Staff 9751]

 

My ISP isn't throttling they clearly say on their website they allow (open)VPN,

 

 

"Allowing" does not mean "no shaping". Anyway please test port 1194 (the "officially reserved to" OpenVPN port) to check whether there's any performance improvement. Also test with sockets buffers forced to 256 KB and 512 KB (verify on the client logs what your system currently sets). In Windows, the sockets buffers sizes should not be set to "Automatic" by default: which Eddie beta version are you running? Did you manually set them to "Automatic" (even in some past version of Eddie)?

 

Finally post all the logs of a single connection, just in case there's some useful clue.

 

Kind regards

[go558a83nk 352]

 

Sweden server (6% usage) with airvpn, MTU 8000:

 

 

What MTU do you refer to? tun MTU is 1500 bytes and can't be modified unilaterally, of course. Ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes as well, are you in a jumbo-frames supporting network? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_transmission_unit

 

Kind regards

 

The article you cited above, https://airvpn.org/external_link/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.openvpn.net%2Fopenvpn%2Fwiki%2FGigabit_Networks_Linux , theorizes that high tun-mtu values work better because they get larger chunks of data into the encryption/decryption engine.  If this is true is it possible that even if only unilaterally set it results in a performance increase?

[zhang888 1065]

Jumbo frames over WAN are unrealistic, this is why it only applies to local LAN environments where you control

both ends of the link.

When talking over long distance internet links, you control a very small path of the entire segment, and most ISPs

are configured to 1500 MTUs so at the best case they will be able to transit your jumbo frames by reassembling

them into smaller 1500 packets, and a more common case is that they will simply be dropped if your ISP.

Jumbo frames is designed as an ethernet specification and is not intended to use over WAN.

 

Don't mix between the Gigabit OpenVPN guide best practices in LAN and WAN, right now there is a very limited

chance to get anything near that with the current crypto, hardware, and latency.

[HomerSimpson 3]

Hello!

 

All new users are on that queue. It depends on your posts, not the length of time you've been here. Infringers will also find themselves queued.

 

I hope you'll follow along with a comparable hardware upgrade!

 

Sent to you from me with datalove

 

 

Sometimes I have a hothead and say bizarre and hateful things.  I apologize to you and airvpn staff for past actions and anything I might do in the future because of my idiotic inability control myself. I really like airvpn and plan to subscribe as long as they will have me.

[Anonymous_13 31]

How can I test port 1194? It is not selectable within the Airvpn Client. I was running the latest experimental  which is 2.11.3 i believe, but I've uninstalled it, deleted the settings and switched back to 2.10.3 but this hasn't solved the issue.

 

I've tested buffer size with automatic, openvpn default, 128kb, 256kb and 512kb buffer size in airvpn client. There wasn't any difference.

I've tested protocols with automatic, UDP 443, UDP 80, UDP 53, UDP 2018, UDP 443 / 80 / 52 /2018 alternative entry IP. There wasn't any difference.

 

On Alcor server I get 170mbps now. But on any Sweden, Netherland, Germany server which are closer to my location I get only 10mbps or lower.

Sometimes it works, most of the time not. Was bothers me is that it started to appear after I played with the airvpn client openvpn directives.

 

It seems to be completely random to me, like 9/10 times the speed is heavily limited. There is no server/port/setting where I can clearly say it works 100% of the time.

 

[Staff 9751]

 

How can I test port 1194? It is not selectable within the Airvpn Client. I was running the latest experimental  which is 2.11.3 i believe, but I've uninstalled it, deleted the settings and switched back to 2.10.3 but this hasn't solved the issue.

 

Connection modes with destination port 1194 are available only in 2.11.x, not in 2.10.3 or older versions. Re-upgrade to 2.11.3 and anyway keep driver 9.21.2.

 

 

I've tested protocols with automatic, UDP 443, UDP 80, UDP 53, UDP 2018, UDP 443 / 80 / 52 /2018 alternative entry IP. There wasn't any difference.

 

On Alcor server I get 170mbps now. But on any Sweden, Netherland, Germany server which are closer to my location I get only 10mbps or lower.

Sometimes it works, most of the time not. Was bothers me is that it started to appear after I played with the airvpn client openvpn directives.

 

It seems to be completely random to me, like 9/10 times the speed is heavily limited. There is no server/port/setting where I can clearly say it works 100% of the time.

 

Maybe a combination of bad peering, congestion and traffic shaping enforced only on certain peak times. Of all the modes you tested, you missed the "OpenVPN over SSL/TLS", test it as well.

 

The fact that you don't see any difference between UDP and TCP, however, hints to traffic shaping. because if the network was really agnostic, and any other condition is the same, there would be no way to reach the same performance of UDP with TCP.

 

Note: it remains to be seen what performance the new tun/tap drivers can handle with the tun interface. The old 9.9 ones could not beat 100-110 Mbit/s on Windows (this peculiar limitation affected only Windows, of course), while 9.21.0 and 9.21.1 are bugged, so we recommend that you rely only on 9.21.2. Anyway 170 Mbit/s on the tun/tap interface looks like a very good performance in Windows.

 

Kind regards

[Anonymous_13 31]

TCP 443, 256kb buffer, Miran Netherlands:

 

1. Run:

http://i.imgur.com/dlHzLQ0.png

 

2. Run (disconnect after speedtest in 1. run and instant connect again without doing anything else):

http://i.imgur.com/nFSfQi9.png

 

 

This is what happens all the time now. It is completely random whether my speed is locked or not. Once I have good speed it remains as long as I stay connected. When I switch the server or even disconnect and connect again (in less than 10 seconds) my speed is limited again.

I've tested with port 1194 as well after upgrading again to 2.11.3

[Staff 9751]

TCP 443, 256kb buffer, Miran Netherlands:

 

1. Run:

http://i.imgur.com/dlHzLQ0.png

 

Amazingly good for a TCP connection from a Windows machine. Test OpenVPN over SSL as well.

 

Kind regards