Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

Thanks. I'm curious to how much the threading helps performance here if at all. That part of the design we inherited from iperf 2 when we took over maintenance of it. We tried to keep the overall code similar in order to not impact performance. At first we tried not to touch the traffic

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM Bob McMahon wrote: > > hmm, I confused. Did you run multiple iperf 3 sessions or iperf 2 with the > -P 8,10 option or possibly both? Your previous response said the only way to > get this was with multiple iperf 3 sessions and didn't mention iperf 2 nor > the

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

hmm, I confused. Did you run multiple iperf 3 sessions or iperf 2 with the -P 8,10 option or possibly both? Your previous response said the only way to get this was with multiple iperf 3 sessions and didn't mention iperf 2 nor the use of -P. In theory, iperf 2 could outperform iperf 3 per the

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

For my needs (very simple testing) yes. We had to do that because iperf3 doesn't multi-thread like iperf 2 did, unfortunately. On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:37 PM Bob McMahon wrote: > > Is it just multiple threads? It might be interesting to try iperf 2.0.13 and > the -P 8 option. > > Bob > > On

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

Is it just multiple threads? It might be interesting to try iperf 2.0.13 and the -P 8 option. Bob On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:04 AM Jeffrey Lane wrote: > I've been working on this a bit and the only way to get it was to run > multiple iperf3 threads. To do this, you have to set up several (we

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

Can you run with iperf 2.0.13 using the same setup? I'd be curious to see how it performs compared to iperf 3. If you're able try this, please use the --realtime option to see if that helps. Bob On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:38 AM Chris

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

I would think that TCP offloading techniques like MS TCP Chimney/NetDMA would be necessary to accomplish those high-speed. It will be interesting to see what Iperf3 uses and if it will be suitable to use with MS Chimney (MS Server 2012R2). It took MS nine years to get their technology working

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

I've been working on this a bit and the only way to get it was to run multiple iperf3 threads. To do this, you have to set up several (we do about 8 threads for 100Gb, possibly 10) on the target (listening to different ports) and then run to client instances (one for each port), then aggregate the

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

I tried and got up to 87Gbps throughput. The results were CPU bound. I want to build new i7 9900K PCs and re-test. Here's a video of my attempt: https://youtu.be/uh2zvaaH0hc On Thu, May 30, 2019, 3:08 AM Ashwajit Bhoutkar wrote: > Hi, > > Just wanted to check whether it is possible to

Re: [Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

I think it will be CPU constrained by the computer CPU and difficult to accomplish with one iperf stream. Also, you may want to qualify in terms of packets per second as that's likely the bottleneck. Iperf 2 has some experimental python 3 code in the flows directory that can coordinate multiple

[Iperf-users] Throughput Testing of 100G Capacity using iPerf

Hi, Just wanted to check whether it is possible to test the throughput of 100G link using iPerf. Thank You, Kind Regards, Ashwajit ___ Iperf-users mailing list Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users