Bob, Yes, we would need the Read side as well. Sometimes we see packets drop from a single direction (that is actually very common). Technically we could just flip the roles of the 2 ends so it isn't critical.
Craig Reeves "Bridging Communications" 3520 Lorna Ridge Drive Hoover, AL 35216 v.(205) 829-1800 f. (205) 536-6333 c. (205) 332-5916 On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:32 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> wrote: > Also, this would only be on the client. Iperf 2.0.14 supports both write > and read rate limiting via -b on the server as well as client. Sweeps > wouldn't be supported by the server (or on the read side.) > > Any issue with that, or, is there a read size need as well? > > Bob > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:29 AM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> > wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> Thanks, we'd be more than happy to test it out. Just let me know and >> I'll get my engineering group to check it out. >> >> Craig Reeves >> >> "Bridging Communications" >> 3520 Lorna Ridge Drive >> Hoover, AL 35216 >> v.(205) 829-1800 >> f. (205) 536-6333 >> c. (205) 332-5916 >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:21 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Craig, >>> >>> Any reason you need iperf 3 for this and can't use iperf 2.0.14? >>> >>> We are in the process of early field test for iperf 2.0.14. >>> <https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/> This is probably an >>> experimental feature that could be added last minute. We'd need you to >>> test if willing. Our goal is to release 2.0.14 early 2021. >>> >>> We're out of short options and would need to use long options. Maybe >>> something like >>> >>> --sweep-range=1m,100m, 1m (start, final, step size) defaults to >>> 1m,10m,1m with just --sweep-range >>> --sweep-steptime 1.5 (units of seconds) defaults to 1 second if >>> --sweep-range and no --sweep-steptime >>> >>> Note that --sweep-range has optional arguments (per the =) and >>> sweep-steptime has a mandatory argument (if used.) >>> >>> All, do comment on more intuitive command line options. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:12 AM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> First, many thanks for putting this tool together and sharing it. It >>>> has proved invaluable over the years when dealing with ISPs. >>>> >>>> That being said, we regularly encounter ISPs that don't think their >>>> network has issues. Most of the time we can pinpoint to a switch or >>>> connection that is over saturated. >>>> >>>> I would love to see a feature that allowed us to set a starting >>>> throughput, incremental step up/down throughput, and interval. This would >>>> help find the point at which issues begin. Here is the idea: >>>> >>>> iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 -bt 1M -et 10M -st 10s -t 100 -u >>>> >>>> -bt = beginning throughput >>>> -et = ending throughput >>>> -st = step up/down time >>>> >>>> The thinking is that iperf3 would start a test (UDP or TCP) at 1Mb/s >>>> throughput, and then ramp up in 1Mb/s steps ever 10 seconds. >>>> >>>> This eliminates the need to do individual runs with different settings. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Craig Reeves >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Iperf-users mailing list >>>> Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Iperf-users mailing list Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
