cloudflare
Add benchmarks comparing boringtun with wireguard-go and official kernel-space impl
It would be great if you could add some performance stats for boringtun. I would be also interested in comparison with the kernel-space implementation and wireguard-go.
Here is my own benchmark result: two g10 servers with 10G interface. Peer A Server: Ubuntu 18.04.2 CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6238 CPU @ 2.10GHz RAM: 512 GB wg0.conf
[Interface]
PrivateKey = <key>
Address = 10.0.0.2/32
[Peer]
PublicKey = <key>
Endpoint = 10.10.0.2:51820
AllowedIPs = 10.0.0.0/24
Peer B Server: Ubuntu 16.04.6 CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6230 CPU @ 2.10GHz RAM: 384 GB wg0.conf
[Interface]
Address = 10.0.0.1/32
ListenPort = 51820
PrivateKey = <key>
[Peer]
PublicKey = <key>
AllowedIPs = 10.0.0.0/24
BoringTun:
iperf -c 10.0.0.1 -t 300 -P 8
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.0.1, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 45.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 10] local 10.0.0.2 port 48990 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 8] local 10.0.0.2 port 48984 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 6] local 10.0.0.2 port 48980 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 9] local 10.0.0.2 port 48988 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 5] local 10.0.0.2 port 48986 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 3] local 10.0.0.2 port 48976 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 7] local 10.0.0.2 port 48982 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 4] local 10.0.0.2 port 48978 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 10] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.7 GBytes 336 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.8 GBytes 339 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.5 GBytes 329 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.0 GBytes 343 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.5 GBytes 330 Mbits/sec
[ 9] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.8 GBytes 337 Mbits/sec
[ 7] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.7 GBytes 335 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 0.0-300.0 sec 11.9 GBytes 340 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 93.9 GBytes 2.69 Gbits/sec
Wireguard kernel:
iperf -c 10.0.0.1 -t 300 -P 8
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.0.1, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 45.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 9] local 10.0.0.2 port 49054 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 8] local 10.0.0.2 port 49048 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 7] local 10.0.0.2 port 49050 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 4] local 10.0.0.2 port 49046 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 3] local 10.0.0.2 port 49040 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 6] local 10.0.0.2 port 49044 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 5] local 10.0.0.2 port 49042 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ 10] local 10.0.0.2 port 49052 connected with 10.0.0.1 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 9] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.5 GBytes 357 Mbits/sec
[ 7] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.6 GBytes 361 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.2 GBytes 351 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.2 GBytes 350 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.2 GBytes 351 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.1 GBytes 347 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.2 GBytes 350 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 0.0-300.0 sec 12.0 GBytes 342 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 98.1 GBytes 2.81 Gbits/sec
@AmirAliSobhGol thank you very much, in your benchmark both peers run WireGuard and then both peers run BoringTun?
@vkrasnov Peer B (10.0.0.1) is wireguard in both scenario. only Peer A changes to boringtun implementation
Tailscale improved wireguard-go throughput (on linux) by the factor of 2 https://tailscale.com/blog/throughput-improvements/
https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go/pull/64
Tailscale has now improved performance even further. It would be nice to have some official performance comparisons.
RE: https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/
I use wgbench to benchmark linux kernel wireguard and wireguard-go and boringtun.
I modified the following line in the script to support wg-go and boringtun:
ip netns exec wgbench$i ip link add wgbench$i type wireguard
# ip netns exec wgbench$i wireguard-go wgbench$i
# ip netns exec wgbench$i boringtun-cli --disable-drop-privileges wgbench$i
But the result is really strange. Here's the result:
linux:
wireguard-go:
boringtun:
Here is my server spec:
Does anyone know why?
I try to use -t 32 to change the thread number but the result is still the same.
