For UDP, are you expecting the sweep applies both to client and server at the same time? I guess I'm confused about UDP read size rate limiting. If the client applies 100m and the server is read limited per a sweep there is going to be drops. UDP doesn't flow control the client.
Bob On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> wrote: > Yes, but the percentage of drops is fairly low in a clean network pipe. > > 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 1:39 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> > wrote: > >> Ok, read side limiting would trigger source flow control for TCP and >> cause drops per UDP. Is that what you'd expect? >> >> Bob >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Iperf-users mailing list Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
