Is iperf valid to measure network performance?Expected throughput in Gigabit networkHow to get gigabit network speeds on Windows XP?Measuring network performance between Windows and LinuxDifferent versions of iperf for windows give totally different resultsPoor network performance on Server 2008 machinesNetwork Performance / SMB-CIFS / GuidanceWhy iperf still reports 1Gbps performance when using bonding over two 1Gbps adapters?Simulate massive network trafficWhy the bandwidth is not ~10G?IPERF 2.0.8/2.0.9 in Windows - "connect failed: Connection refused
Why were the rules for Proliferate changed?
Why doesn't a particle exert force on itself?
Is there a reason why Turkey took the Balkan territories of the Ottoman Empire, instead of Greece or another of the Balkan states?
Magical Modulo Squares
Make me a minimum magic sum
shebang or not shebang
A♭ major 9th chord in Bach is unexpectedly dissonant/jazzy
Did any early RISC OS precursor run on the BBC Micro?
How does "politician" work as a job/career?
Explaining intravenous drug abuse to a small child
Extracting the parent, leaf, and extension from a valid path
Gift for mentor after his thesis defense?
An adjective or a noun to describe a very small apartment / house etc
Searching for a sentence that I only know part of it using Google's operators
Translation of "invincible independence"
Saying the right thing then saying the wrong thing toch kedai dibur
A problem with Hebrew and English underlined text
And now you see it
I want to write a blog post building upon someone else's paper, how can I properly cite/credit them?
How do I give a darkroom course without negs from the attendees?
Employee is self-centered and affects the team negatively
Can anyone identify this unknown 1988 PC card from The Palantir Corporation?
The unknown and unexplained in science fiction
How can I finally understand the confusing modal verb "мочь"?
Is iperf valid to measure network performance?
Expected throughput in Gigabit networkHow to get gigabit network speeds on Windows XP?Measuring network performance between Windows and LinuxDifferent versions of iperf for windows give totally different resultsPoor network performance on Server 2008 machinesNetwork Performance / SMB-CIFS / GuidanceWhy iperf still reports 1Gbps performance when using bonding over two 1Gbps adapters?Simulate massive network trafficWhy the bandwidth is not ~10G?IPERF 2.0.8/2.0.9 in Windows - "connect failed: Connection refused
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
We are investigating performance issues in one of our software deployment between our application servers (Windows) and our Redis instances (Linux).
On a 10 Gbits/s link single TCP connections can apparently only reach 10 Mbits/s. Opening several TCP connections allows us to reach a higher bandwitch. UDP does not seem to be affected by these limitations and reaches the full speed of the link. This kind-of make us suspect that some network device (firewall, proxy ?) inside the network causes these throughput differences.
We made those measurements using iperf
(same version) on both the Windows servers and the Linux one.
Our networking team however, completely discards those result based on the fact that "iperf is not officially supported on Windows and so the results can't be trusted". At the same time, they deny to provide an alternative tool to do those measurements and claim that "the network is fine".
So my question is: can iperf
be reliably used to measure TCP and UDP performance between Windows and Linux servers ? If no, which tool would you recommend ?
networking bandwidth operating-system iperf
add a comment |
We are investigating performance issues in one of our software deployment between our application servers (Windows) and our Redis instances (Linux).
On a 10 Gbits/s link single TCP connections can apparently only reach 10 Mbits/s. Opening several TCP connections allows us to reach a higher bandwitch. UDP does not seem to be affected by these limitations and reaches the full speed of the link. This kind-of make us suspect that some network device (firewall, proxy ?) inside the network causes these throughput differences.
We made those measurements using iperf
(same version) on both the Windows servers and the Linux one.
Our networking team however, completely discards those result based on the fact that "iperf is not officially supported on Windows and so the results can't be trusted". At the same time, they deny to provide an alternative tool to do those measurements and claim that "the network is fine".
So my question is: can iperf
be reliably used to measure TCP and UDP performance between Windows and Linux servers ? If no, which tool would you recommend ?
networking bandwidth operating-system iperf
add a comment |
We are investigating performance issues in one of our software deployment between our application servers (Windows) and our Redis instances (Linux).
On a 10 Gbits/s link single TCP connections can apparently only reach 10 Mbits/s. Opening several TCP connections allows us to reach a higher bandwitch. UDP does not seem to be affected by these limitations and reaches the full speed of the link. This kind-of make us suspect that some network device (firewall, proxy ?) inside the network causes these throughput differences.
We made those measurements using iperf
(same version) on both the Windows servers and the Linux one.
Our networking team however, completely discards those result based on the fact that "iperf is not officially supported on Windows and so the results can't be trusted". At the same time, they deny to provide an alternative tool to do those measurements and claim that "the network is fine".
So my question is: can iperf
be reliably used to measure TCP and UDP performance between Windows and Linux servers ? If no, which tool would you recommend ?
networking bandwidth operating-system iperf
We are investigating performance issues in one of our software deployment between our application servers (Windows) and our Redis instances (Linux).
On a 10 Gbits/s link single TCP connections can apparently only reach 10 Mbits/s. Opening several TCP connections allows us to reach a higher bandwitch. UDP does not seem to be affected by these limitations and reaches the full speed of the link. This kind-of make us suspect that some network device (firewall, proxy ?) inside the network causes these throughput differences.
We made those measurements using iperf
(same version) on both the Windows servers and the Linux one.
Our networking team however, completely discards those result based on the fact that "iperf is not officially supported on Windows and so the results can't be trusted". At the same time, they deny to provide an alternative tool to do those measurements and claim that "the network is fine".
So my question is: can iperf
be reliably used to measure TCP and UDP performance between Windows and Linux servers ? If no, which tool would you recommend ?
networking bandwidth operating-system iperf
networking bandwidth operating-system iperf
asked Aug 19 '15 at 13:55
ereOnereOn
4141315
4141315
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
iperf could be used, I wonder which parameters you were using when 10 Mbps have been reported.
Another useful tool is Netpipe (available in Linux repos) and for Windows I would recommend using the Java version, available here:
Information on how to run Netpipe is here available.
We can help you in identifying the issue with regards to the access to Redis. Which network vendor are you using?
add a comment |
iperf is perfectly supported in windows since, at least, 2005.
Now days you even have different versions for iperf3 in Windows: 32 bits, 64 bits and even UWP versions are available.
Once you have the same version (and by version I mean build, like v3.1.3 for ex.) of iperf3 in both, client and server, you can test for 10gbps doing the following:
Server
iperf3 -s
Should show an output like:
------------------------
Server listening on 5201
------------------------
Client
iperf3 -P XX -c $server_ip
Where:
- "P XX" represents the number of parallel flows
- "$server_ip" the above server IP
This should output something along the lines of:
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.9 GBytes 9.30 Gbits/sec sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec receiver
If you are not getting around that, you might want to try playing around with the TCP Window Size. You can change it from the client side with the -w XXu
flag, where XX is the size and u the unit (k, m).
Another way to test network bandwidth is to serve an http file from one of the ends, and use some kind of download tool that allows parallel streams (wget, filezilla, or almost every download manager). Or run a benhmark tool, but I would stay with iperf, which is usually the default tool for the job for (almost) everyone.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f715272%2fis-iperf-valid-to-measure-network-performance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
iperf could be used, I wonder which parameters you were using when 10 Mbps have been reported.
Another useful tool is Netpipe (available in Linux repos) and for Windows I would recommend using the Java version, available here:
Information on how to run Netpipe is here available.
We can help you in identifying the issue with regards to the access to Redis. Which network vendor are you using?
add a comment |
iperf could be used, I wonder which parameters you were using when 10 Mbps have been reported.
Another useful tool is Netpipe (available in Linux repos) and for Windows I would recommend using the Java version, available here:
Information on how to run Netpipe is here available.
We can help you in identifying the issue with regards to the access to Redis. Which network vendor are you using?
add a comment |
iperf could be used, I wonder which parameters you were using when 10 Mbps have been reported.
Another useful tool is Netpipe (available in Linux repos) and for Windows I would recommend using the Java version, available here:
Information on how to run Netpipe is here available.
We can help you in identifying the issue with regards to the access to Redis. Which network vendor are you using?
iperf could be used, I wonder which parameters you were using when 10 Mbps have been reported.
Another useful tool is Netpipe (available in Linux repos) and for Windows I would recommend using the Java version, available here:
Information on how to run Netpipe is here available.
We can help you in identifying the issue with regards to the access to Redis. Which network vendor are you using?
answered Sep 15 '15 at 23:36
Guillermo LopezGuillermo Lopez
101
101
add a comment |
add a comment |
iperf is perfectly supported in windows since, at least, 2005.
Now days you even have different versions for iperf3 in Windows: 32 bits, 64 bits and even UWP versions are available.
Once you have the same version (and by version I mean build, like v3.1.3 for ex.) of iperf3 in both, client and server, you can test for 10gbps doing the following:
Server
iperf3 -s
Should show an output like:
------------------------
Server listening on 5201
------------------------
Client
iperf3 -P XX -c $server_ip
Where:
- "P XX" represents the number of parallel flows
- "$server_ip" the above server IP
This should output something along the lines of:
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.9 GBytes 9.30 Gbits/sec sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec receiver
If you are not getting around that, you might want to try playing around with the TCP Window Size. You can change it from the client side with the -w XXu
flag, where XX is the size and u the unit (k, m).
Another way to test network bandwidth is to serve an http file from one of the ends, and use some kind of download tool that allows parallel streams (wget, filezilla, or almost every download manager). Or run a benhmark tool, but I would stay with iperf, which is usually the default tool for the job for (almost) everyone.
add a comment |
iperf is perfectly supported in windows since, at least, 2005.
Now days you even have different versions for iperf3 in Windows: 32 bits, 64 bits and even UWP versions are available.
Once you have the same version (and by version I mean build, like v3.1.3 for ex.) of iperf3 in both, client and server, you can test for 10gbps doing the following:
Server
iperf3 -s
Should show an output like:
------------------------
Server listening on 5201
------------------------
Client
iperf3 -P XX -c $server_ip
Where:
- "P XX" represents the number of parallel flows
- "$server_ip" the above server IP
This should output something along the lines of:
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.9 GBytes 9.30 Gbits/sec sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec receiver
If you are not getting around that, you might want to try playing around with the TCP Window Size. You can change it from the client side with the -w XXu
flag, where XX is the size and u the unit (k, m).
Another way to test network bandwidth is to serve an http file from one of the ends, and use some kind of download tool that allows parallel streams (wget, filezilla, or almost every download manager). Or run a benhmark tool, but I would stay with iperf, which is usually the default tool for the job for (almost) everyone.
add a comment |
iperf is perfectly supported in windows since, at least, 2005.
Now days you even have different versions for iperf3 in Windows: 32 bits, 64 bits and even UWP versions are available.
Once you have the same version (and by version I mean build, like v3.1.3 for ex.) of iperf3 in both, client and server, you can test for 10gbps doing the following:
Server
iperf3 -s
Should show an output like:
------------------------
Server listening on 5201
------------------------
Client
iperf3 -P XX -c $server_ip
Where:
- "P XX" represents the number of parallel flows
- "$server_ip" the above server IP
This should output something along the lines of:
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.9 GBytes 9.30 Gbits/sec sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec receiver
If you are not getting around that, you might want to try playing around with the TCP Window Size. You can change it from the client side with the -w XXu
flag, where XX is the size and u the unit (k, m).
Another way to test network bandwidth is to serve an http file from one of the ends, and use some kind of download tool that allows parallel streams (wget, filezilla, or almost every download manager). Or run a benhmark tool, but I would stay with iperf, which is usually the default tool for the job for (almost) everyone.
iperf is perfectly supported in windows since, at least, 2005.
Now days you even have different versions for iperf3 in Windows: 32 bits, 64 bits and even UWP versions are available.
Once you have the same version (and by version I mean build, like v3.1.3 for ex.) of iperf3 in both, client and server, you can test for 10gbps doing the following:
Server
iperf3 -s
Should show an output like:
------------------------
Server listening on 5201
------------------------
Client
iperf3 -P XX -c $server_ip
Where:
- "P XX" represents the number of parallel flows
- "$server_ip" the above server IP
This should output something along the lines of:
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.9 GBytes 9.30 Gbits/sec sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec receiver
If you are not getting around that, you might want to try playing around with the TCP Window Size. You can change it from the client side with the -w XXu
flag, where XX is the size and u the unit (k, m).
Another way to test network bandwidth is to serve an http file from one of the ends, and use some kind of download tool that allows parallel streams (wget, filezilla, or almost every download manager). Or run a benhmark tool, but I would stay with iperf, which is usually the default tool for the job for (almost) everyone.
answered May 19 '18 at 6:49
LeoLeo
1,515415
1,515415
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f715272%2fis-iperf-valid-to-measure-network-performance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown