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

[Bob McMahon via Iperf-users]

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
threads "fast paths" but over time found we really needed to.  We also kept
the output the same for script compatibility.   For newer enhanced output,
the -e flag is required.

We're considering adding CPU measurements but probably not directly rather
via coordination using the python controller model.  Another possibility is
a hotelling multivariate statistic to monitor CPU, memory, latency and
average throughput - but that's all for regression detections and probably
only of interest to automated test houses.

Do let me know if you are able to get some data.   We have access to WiFi
class devices and platforms and some 10G but no machines that support 100G.

Bob



On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jeffrey Lane  wrote:

> 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 use of -P.
>
> multiple iperf3 instances, similar to what Chris Preimesberger
> demonstrates in his video, only we use upwards of 10 threads. (it
> works out to about 1 thread per 10Gb of bandwidth).
>
> You mentioned iperf2 would be interesting to try, I was just
> commenting that we went with multiple iperf3 instances vs a single
> "iperf2 -P" because iperf3 does some things we wanted (like CPU
> measurements) but lacks true multithreading.  The "use multiple
> instances of iperf3" is a workaround to lack of proper
> multi-threading.  Also, note, I'm not an expert, we came to this by
> way of a lot of internet reading and trial and error.
>
> > In theory, iperf 2 could outperform iperf 3 per the use of threads, e..g
> separating the traffic from the accounting and reporting.  I'm curious to
> actual experimental results.
> > Note:  Iperf 2.0.13 is really required for this class of testing as
> older iperf  versions (e.g. 2.0.5) have performance related bugs.
>
> It may.  If one of my machines frees up I may try this to see how it
> works out. No promises though, I've already got too much work as it is
> :(
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:49 AM Jeffrey Lane 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 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
> 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 results for each, and that nets in the 92-97Gb/s
> >> >> range overall.
> >> >>
> >> >> Additionally, in some cases tweaks are necessary (jumbo frames, some
> >> >> kernel tweaks, driver tweaks, etc) but that's all case-by-case.
> >> >>
> >> >> And it is very much constrained by CPU and PCIe bandwidth.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:38 PM Chris Preimesberger <
> ccpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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 <
> bhout...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 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
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ___
> >> >> > Iperf-users mailing list
> >> >> > Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jeff Lane
> >> >> Engineering Manager
> >> >> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
> >> >>
> >> >> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ___
> >> >> Iperf-users mailing list
> >> 

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

[Jeffrey Lane]

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 use of -P.

multiple iperf3 instances, similar to what Chris Preimesberger
demonstrates in his video, only we use upwards of 10 threads. (it
works out to about 1 thread per 10Gb of bandwidth).

You mentioned iperf2 would be interesting to try, I was just
commenting that we went with multiple iperf3 instances vs a single
"iperf2 -P" because iperf3 does some things we wanted (like CPU
measurements) but lacks true multithreading.  The "use multiple
instances of iperf3" is a workaround to lack of proper
multi-threading.  Also, note, I'm not an expert, we came to this by
way of a lot of internet reading and trial and error.

> In theory, iperf 2 could outperform iperf 3 per the use of threads, e..g 
> separating the traffic from the accounting and reporting.  I'm curious to 
> actual experimental results.
> Note:  Iperf 2.0.13 is really required for this class of testing as older 
> iperf  versions (e.g. 2.0.5) have performance related bugs.

It may.  If one of my machines frees up I may try this to see how it
works out. No promises though, I've already got too much work as it is
:(

>
> Bob
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:49 AM Jeffrey Lane  wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 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 results for each, and that nets in the 92-97Gb/s
>> >> range overall.
>> >>
>> >> Additionally, in some cases tweaks are necessary (jumbo frames, some
>> >> kernel tweaks, driver tweaks, etc) but that's all case-by-case.
>> >>
>> >> And it is very much constrained by CPU and PCIe bandwidth.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:38 PM Chris Preimesberger  
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > 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 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
>> >> >
>> >> > ___
>> >> > Iperf-users mailing list
>> >> > Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jeff Lane
>> >> Engineering Manager
>> >> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
>> >>
>> >> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Iperf-users mailing list
>> >> Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Lane
>> Engineering Manager
>> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
>>
>> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."



-- 
Jeff Lane
Engineering Manager
IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification

"Entropy isn't what it used to be."


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

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

[Bob McMahon via Iperf-users]

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 use of threads, e..g
separating the traffic from the accounting and reporting.  I'm curious to
actual experimental results.

Note:  Iperf 2.0.13 is really required for this class of testing as older
iperf  versions (e.g. 2.0.5) have performance related bugs.

Bob

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:49 AM Jeffrey Lane  wrote:

> 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 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 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 results for each, and that nets in the 92-97Gb/s
> >> range overall.
> >>
> >> Additionally, in some cases tweaks are necessary (jumbo frames, some
> >> kernel tweaks, driver tweaks, etc) but that's all case-by-case.
> >>
> >> And it is very much constrained by CPU and PCIe bandwidth.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:38 PM Chris Preimesberger 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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 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
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Iperf-users mailing list
> >> > Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Lane
> >> Engineering Manager
> >> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
> >>
> >> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Iperf-users mailing list
> >> Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Lane
> Engineering Manager
> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
>
> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
>
___
Iperf-users mailing list
Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users

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

[Jeffrey Lane]

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 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 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 results for each, and that nets in the 92-97Gb/s
>> range overall.
>>
>> Additionally, in some cases tweaks are necessary (jumbo frames, some
>> kernel tweaks, driver tweaks, etc) but that's all case-by-case.
>>
>> And it is very much constrained by CPU and PCIe bandwidth.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:38 PM Chris Preimesberger  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 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
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Iperf-users mailing list
>> > Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Lane
>> Engineering Manager
>> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
>>
>> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Iperf-users mailing list
>> Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users



-- 
Jeff Lane
Engineering Manager
IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification

"Entropy isn't what it used to be."


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

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

[Bob McMahon via Iperf-users]

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 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 results for each, and that nets in the 92-97Gb/s
> range overall.
>
> Additionally, in some cases tweaks are necessary (jumbo frames, some
> kernel tweaks, driver tweaks, etc) but that's all case-by-case.
>
> And it is very much constrained by CPU and PCIe bandwidth.
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:38 PM Chris Preimesberger 
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 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
> >
> > ___
> > Iperf-users mailing list
> > Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Lane
> Engineering Manager
> IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification
>
> "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
>
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Bob McMahon via Iperf-users]

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 Preimesberger 
wrote:

> 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 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
>>
> ___
> 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

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

[Peter Reed]

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
well.  No need to abandon it now.

One side thought.  There will be few services that create 100 Gb traffic
flows (weather data, etc).   The Iperf2 approach to coordinate multiple
traffic flows over multiple computers seems like a good model for typical
data services (e.g. 5G backhaul).


Cheers,
Peter Reed
(510)332-1840
Skype: peterwreed

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be
privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any
review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error or via monitoring, please notify the sender
immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and
network.  Use of any information contained or derived by processing
information in the message including email header, except in the commission
of delivery violates my rights to privacy.  I do not grant permission to
retain any information related to this message to any party, except the
intended recipient.





On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob McMahon via Iperf-users <
iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> 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 traffic flows over multiple computers.  It assumes
> ssh access from the python controller.
>
> Iperf 3 is targeting high speed research networks and may be a better
> option - not sure.
>
> Bob
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:08 AM Ashwajit Bhoutkar 
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> ___
> 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

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

[Jeffrey Lane]

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 results for each, and that nets in the 92-97Gb/s
range overall.

Additionally, in some cases tweaks are necessary (jumbo frames, some
kernel tweaks, driver tweaks, etc) but that's all case-by-case.

And it is very much constrained by CPU and PCIe bandwidth.


On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:38 PM Chris Preimesberger  wrote:
>
> 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 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
>
> ___
> Iperf-users mailing list
> Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users



-- 
Jeff Lane
Engineering Manager
IHV/OEM Alliances and Server Certification

"Entropy isn't what it used to be."


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

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

[Chris Preimesberger]

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

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

[Bob McMahon via Iperf-users]

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 traffic flows over multiple computers.  It assumes ssh
access from the python controller.

Iperf 3 is targeting high speed research networks and may be a better
option - not sure.

Bob

On Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:08 AM Ashwajit Bhoutkar  wrote:

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

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

[Ashwajit Bhoutkar]

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