Try using multiple TCP sessions "iperf -P 5" (note - capital "P").
regards, Tony. ----- Original Message ----- > From: CiscoNSP List <[email protected]> > To: Azher Mughal <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013 9:51 AM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Performance issue on link > >T hanks - Ill check them out now > >> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:16:36 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Performance issue on link >> >> These might be helpful: >> >> http://fasterdata.es.net/network-tuning/ >> >> > http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/prod_software/Performance_Tuning_Guide_for_Mellanox_Network_Adapters.pdf >> >> -Azher >> >> On 4/1/2013 3:51 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > We have a 40Mb link between 2 POPs - Latency ~65m/sec (No packet-loss) >> > >> > POP A Is a 7301 and 2960POP B is a 7200 and 4948 >> > >> > 40Mb link is connected to the two switches (L2), and then a trunk link > to both routers for all L3. >> > >> > Have a Linux server connected to both switches, and achieve the > following performance: >> > >> > IPERF (UDP) >> > POP A -> POP B - 38.5Mb/secPOP B -> POP A - 38.5Mb/sec >> > >> > IPERF (TCP) >> > POP A -> POP B - ~20Mb/secPOP B -> POP A - ~12Mb/sec >> > >> > FTP >> > POP A -> POP B - ~38Mb/secPOP B -> POP A - ~16Mb/sec >> > >> > WGET >> > POP A -> POP B - ~30Mb/sec POP B -> POP A - ~16Mb/sec >> > >> > Any suggestions on why I am seeing poor performance with TCP > transfers? (Especially POP B -> POP A direction) - I've tried adjusting > the window size in IPERF but it actually made the results worse? >> > Thanks in advance. >> > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
