Hello Bruce,

Just as your requested, I am using IPerf 3.1 as seen in the attached
version details for both server and Client. Also when I try testing my
bandwidth on a 1Gbps NIC, I am getting 0's at the server side and
client side stuck at connecting to host as seen in the attached too.


c:\>iperf3 -v
iperf 3.1.3
CYGWIN_NT-6.3-WOW SERVER2-NMSII 2.5.1(0.297/5/3) 2016-04-21 22:12 i686
Optional features available: None




c:\>iperf3 -s
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 41.242.112.193, port 50758
[  5] local 41.242.112.174 port 5201 connected to 41.242.112.193 port 49476
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter    Lost/Total Datag
rams
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
[  5]   9.00-9.98   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec  0.000 ms  0/0 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter    Lost/Total Datag



CLIENT SIDE

c:\>iperf3 -v
iperf 3.1.3
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW Ibrahim-PC 2.5.1(0.297/5/3) 2016-04-21 22:12 i686
Optional features available: None



c:\>iperf3 -u -c 41.242.112.177 -b900M -w128k -t15
Connecting to host 41.242.112.177, port 5201
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter    Lost/Total Datag
rams



Will really appreciate your kind feedback. Thank you.



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce A. Mah [mailto:b...@es.net]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:26 PM
To: Michael Frimpong <michaelfrimpon...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPERF NOT PROVIDING THE REQUIRED BANDWIDTHIf memory
serves me right, Michael Frimpong wrote:

> Trust you are doing great. Please I am trying to do the test and the
> results for UDP are Ok but at the server side the bandwidth cannot go
> above 500Mbps.
>
>
>
> Most of the datagrams are dropped as seen below and was wondering why
> that is so? Can you help me on why most of the drops happen.

Hi Michael--

Sorry for the delay...multi-tasking between multiple projects here.

I am guessing a little bit here because there are some pieces of information
I still don't have regarding your setup...but here we goi anyway...

One common problem people run into with UDP tests is that they might need to
increase the maximum buffer size, particularly on the receiver side.  You
can change this with the -w command-line flag, for example -w128k sets the
buffer to 128KB.

What happens if you run at lower bitrates (less than 1GB?)?

I think to get any further with this I'll need a few more bits of
information.  Specifically;

1.  The output of "iperf3 -v" on both the client and server sides, so I know
exactly what versions you're running and what operating systems you are
have.

2.  The complete output from a short test, on both the client and server
sides.  Maybe 5 seconds (-t5)?  It looks like this problem would show up
with a much shorter test than what you are doing.

Bruce.

PS.  As I'm looking through your email again, I'm not sure if you're on
iperf2 or iperf3.  This distinction is very important because (despite the
similarity in names) they are totally separate problems.  I know a fair
amount about iperf3 but less about iperf2, and so I may not be able to help
you further.


_______________________________________________
Iperf-users mailing list
Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users

Reply via email to