On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 03:01:33PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > WireGuard shows severe performance degradation (95% bandwidth > loss) on Intel 10Gb interfaces compared to direct connections, > with significant packet loss patterns. > > Performance Comparison: > > ServerA (Chicago) - Intel 10Gb interface (ix0) > ServerB (Atlanta) - Intel 10Gb interface (ix3) > > - Direct connection (iperf): 66.8 Mbps > - WireGuard tunnel (iperf): 3.3 Mbps > - Performance loss: 95% > > The physical Intel interface (ix3) shows 149426 output failures: > > ix3 1500 <Link> f8:f2:1e:3c:9c:09 195418012 0 144748154 149426 > 0 > > suggesting hardware/driver level problems that worsen with > WireGuard traffic processing?
Can you correlate the Ofails with specific traffic or your iperf tests? > $ netstat -i > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ifail Opkts > Ofail Colls > ix3 1500 <Link> f8:f2:1e:3c:9c:09 195418012 0 144748154 > 149426 0 > veb0 0 <Link> 337102600 0 337102600 > 0 0 > veb1 0 <Link> 25554855 0 25554855 > 0 0 > vport0 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d0:ef:42 139625303 0 100441242 > 0 0 > vport0 1500 74.XXX.XX.X host4.xxxx.com 139625303 0 100441242 > 0 0 > vport1 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d1:9e:7a 13353366 0 11848685 > 0 0 > vport1 1500 10.200.0/24 10.200.0.1 13353366 0 11848685 > 0 0 > wg0 1420 <Link> 95659816 367058 64488271 > 3933 0 > wg0 1420 10.100/16 host4.internal 95659816 367058 64488271 > 3933 0 > tap0 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d2:2c:28 28076372 0 32041832 > 13994 0 > tap1 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d3:b5:d3 3772161 0 3780946 > 0 0 > tap2 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d7:f6:3f 10029271 0 12831857 > 77 0 > tap3 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d8:6a:6b 2290696 0 2232822 > 0 0 > tap4 1500 <Link> fe:e1:ba:d9:3d:68 1910905 0 1506775 > 115 0
