I have seen this before, it's called bandwidth delay product and is linked to window size, let us know the tcp results after you have adjusted.
Sent from my iPad On 29 Apr 2012, at 10:22, CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> Did you run your iperf tests also with UDP? (The numbers don't look >> like it.) >> >> With TCP you won't see many drops on your switches, it will adjust - and >> you will see less throughput. >> >> With iperf available at all three sites I would run tests with UDP streams. >> This won't find the maximum bandwith automatically, you have to set a >> bandwidth for testing and see if you have any packet loss. >> >> Keep in mind that your carrier might police on ethernet bandwidth, >> iperf measures IP throuput. > > Thanks Klaus - No, did not test with udp...here it is: > (With 100M had too many drops - 80M was the best:)[ 3] local xxx.xxx.73.54 > port 45790 connected with xxx.xxx.65.2 port 5001[ ID] Interval Transfer > Bandwidth[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 95.4 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec[ 3] Sent 68029 > datagrams[ 3] Server Report:[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 95.4 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec > 0.044 ms 1/68028 (0.0015%)[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1 datagrams received > out-of-order > So to be able to see similar performance with tcp, I will need to adjust tcp > window correct? > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
