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
