FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-21-2012, 01:54 PM
Muhammad Yousuf Khan
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 3:05 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> i am using Debian with below specs
>> 1 GB RAM
>> *Xeon 2.8
>> 2 TB SATA x2 (RAID 1)
>>
>> i learn that my LAN throughput is like 200 to 300 Mbps which is quite
>> enough for me for now. but i am planning ahead to use ISCSI for
>> virtualization to provide HA, therefore i need my Giga LAN to reach
>> the 1000 Mbps throughput.
>>
>> so i need to know. what could be done to achieve this ?
>
> That Xeon 2.8 is apparently a 130nm NetBurst CPU, likely 8 years old,
> which makes the mobo and system chipset 8 years old. *This is a limiting
> factor, but probably not _the_ limiting factor, in GbE throughput.
>
> More important is what ethernet ASIC you're using. *Realtek and Marvell
> ASICs will never hit close to wire speed. *That's just a fact. *Intel
> ASICs can easily. *Probably Broadcomm as well.
>
> Also, to achieve wire speed you'll likely need a large MTU, often called
> a "jumbo frame". *All devices on a subnet must have the same size MTU,
> so this is only an option if you can match the MTU across them all. *And
> all switches on the subnet must also support jumbo frames. *Last, the
> router for the subnet must support jumbo frames on the interface
> connected to the jumbo segment. *If not you'll not be able to reach the
> public internet.


Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
with Jumbo frame?

>
> Regarding Samba, you'll never reach wire speed with it, ~80-85% seems to
> be the limit. *FTP should get really close, 90-95%. *iperf and other
> test utilities should reach 95+% with good NICs.
>
> Before we can give you additional advice/pointers, we need to know what
> ethernet ASIC (NIC) is in the workstation, and also in the Windows
> machine you're communicating with. *If either is a Realtek or other low
> end ASIC you won't reach more than 600-700Mb/s or so. *iSCSI performance
> should be within a few percent of the iperf rate with good NICs.
>
> --
> Stan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4FE2FCB1.7040404@hardwarefreak.com
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAGWVfMkyqeVFZoP8D0bofWDqkUQqd6nuzorYOF-Sp64RWYEBcw@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAGWVfMkyqeVFZoP8D0bofWDqkUQqd6nuzorYOF-Sp64RWYEBcw@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-21-2012, 01:59 PM
"bruno.debian@cyberoso.com"
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:32:11 +0500,
Muhammad Yousuf Khan <sirtcp@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM, bruno.debian@cyberoso.com
> <bruno.debian@cyberoso.com> wrote:
> > Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:00:10 -0500,
> > Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> a écrit :
> >
> >> On 6/21/2012 5:28 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >>
> >> > agreed, but my virtualization system is 4 core xeon 2.3 with 8 GB
> >> > RAM. 500 GB sata RAID 1 so i think hardware will not be a problem
> >>
> >> You keep mentioning all your hardware specs but what counts most:
> >>
> >> THE NIC
> >>
> >> > only 1 switch which is 1 GB supported and linsys switch 48 port
> >> > manageable L2 switch
> >>
> >> Does it support jumbo frames? *Post model# please.
> >>
> >> > standard windows share/samba *i think it uses TCP (not sure)
> >>
> >> Samba uses TCP because its protocol is CIFS/SMB, which use TCP.
> >> *Samba doesn't speak TCP. *CIFS/SMB are two layers up the OSI
> >> stack. *They you can't "tune" Samba's network performance. *You
> >> can only tune Linux' TCP performance, and Samba will benefit.
> >>
> >> You're asking a technical question on a technical mailing list.
> >> Please always post all technical details related to an issue. *Thus
> >> far you have not. *As a rule, it's better to post too much
> >> information that not enough.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
> > Is the problem really the network? If you tested your thoughput
> > c200 to 300 Mbpsopying a file, then I guess the bottleneck is your
> > hard drive. Your 200 to 300 Mbps correspond to your disk throughput
> > in my opinion. Try to use iperf to test your network throughput,
> > and be well aware that your disk io will be the real bottleneck
> > here.
> sorry i got your question wrong sorry for my weakenlish
>
> correct me if i am wrong becuase the drives that i baught has default
> 3 GB througput do you still thing
> drives could be the bottleneck here?
>
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive:
> > http://lists.debian.org/20120621142848.6cb5502d@bruno.vf-online.local
> >

3Gb/s is the sata bus maximum speed, not the drive real throughput.
See
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd6000hlhx-velociraptor-600gb,2600-5.html,
you'll see the maximum real througput for the velociraptor 600GB is 157
MB (~ 1,2 Gb/s), which is rarely obtained anyway in real life
(concurrent reading, access time, ... see
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd6000hlhx-velociraptor-600gb,2600-7.html).

So I bet your 200/300Mb/s are just corresponding to your disk
throughput (We actually have the same on our server at work with a
RAID 10 with 4 x 1TB WD caviar drives).

Kind regards,

Bruno


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120621155908.6d7114cd@bruno.vf-online.local
 
Old 06-21-2012, 01:59 PM
Muhammad Yousuf Khan
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:32:11PM +0500, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> > Your 200 to 300 Mbps correspond to your disk throughput in my opinion.
>> > Try to use iperf to test your network throughput, and be well aware
>> > that your disk io will be the real bottleneck here.
>> sorry i got your question wrong sorry for my weakenlish
>>
>> correct me if i am wrong becuase the drives that i baught has default
>> 3 GB througput do you still thing
>> drives could be the bottleneck here?
>
>
> There are no spinning drives that give 3GB/s throughput. That is the
> rating for the SATA interface between the drives and your PCI(e)
> bus.
>
> There are some solid-state disks, very expensive, which can
> approach 600MB/s. There are some SSDs that connect directly to
> PCIe that approach 6GB/s. In either case, you would have
> mentioned them, because they are very very expensive.
>
> If you have ordinary SATA disks, the best you can expect is
> about 120MB/s per disk, which various RAID schemes can add
> together with more or less efficiency.


Yes i am using ordinary HDs.
still 120MB is way more then what i am getting i am just getting less
then 300Mbps about 40MB/s


>
> -dsr-
>
>
> --
> http://randomstring.org/~dsr/eula.html is hereby incorporated by reference.
> You can't fight for freedom by taking away rights.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAGWVfM=UMPP244a7kxKjZoU1_r6tye+wJLH6RfU2Og0ecSiYT A@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-21-2012, 04:45 PM
Stan Hoeppner
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
> with Jumbo frame?

I don't use jumbo frames here because:

1. Not all the desktop NICs support it
2. No single host _needs_ maximum GbE throughput
We don't do large single file transfers
3. The servers can hit wire speed doing parallel xfers
without using jumbo frames
4. My SAN is fibre channel

I have done testing with GbE and 9000 byte frames and the information I
gave you is based on that testing, the experiences of peers, and many
articles read over the years where similar testing was performed.

--
Stan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FE34F9D.9060109@hardwarefreak.com">http://lists.debian.org/4FE34F9D.9060109@hardwarefreak.com
 
Old 06-22-2012, 07:22 AM
Muhammad Yousuf Khan
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
>> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
>> with Jumbo frame?
>
> I don't use jumbo frames here because:
>
> 1. *Not all the desktop NICs support it
> 2. *No single host _needs_ maximum GbE throughput
> * *We don't do large single file transfers
> 3. *The servers can hit wire speed doing parallel xfers
> * *without using jumbo frames
> 4. *My SAN is fibre channel
>
> I have done testing with GbE and 9000 byte frames and the information I
With reference to the Bruno point. he says it could be the bottleneck
on HD end regardless of what size of ram or Processor are we using. so
my question is have you tested
this on RAID 1?
as i believe read right will highly effect the performance,

Second question is have you tested this on common SATA drives?

3. are you using Linux iSCSI or other sharing methods like FTP, SAMBA
etc. and if yes then how reliable iSCSI could be since i have a bit
bad experience with openfiler and iSCSI connection with XP Clients. so
i want to ask your opinion.

4. and the test results that you have shown are only tests or you are
working on it in productions (you know reliability is also some thing
that i need to know as i am going to be trying this in production)

5. would you please share some details of you SAN BOX
like HARDWARE and OS level.

Thanks


> gave you is based on that testing, the experiences of peers, and many
> articles read over the years where similar testing was performed.
>
> --
> Stan
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAGWVfM=PS5NzV3pN7ZuPRG_FuW+rR9syHdY_ZXMvQ7FY-T-T2Q@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-22-2012, 07:41 AM
Stan Hoeppner
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On 6/22/2012 2:22 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
>>> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
>>> with Jumbo frame?
>>
>> I don't use jumbo frames here because:
>>
>> 1. Not all the desktop NICs support it
>> 2. No single host _needs_ maximum GbE throughput
>> We don't do large single file transfers
>> 3. The servers can hit wire speed doing parallel xfers
>> without using jumbo frames
>> 4. My SAN is fibre channel
>>
>> I have done testing with GbE and 9000 byte frames and the information I


> With reference to the Bruno point. he says it could be the bottleneck
> on HD end regardless of what size of ram or Processor are we using. so
> my question is have you tested
> this on RAID 1?

Before you even progress to the things below, you must run iperf to
obtain a maximum baseline performance. That is the measure of your TCP
transmit/receive throughout. Then you know what you target maximum is
when you tune these other things.

> as i believe read right will highly effect the performance,
>
> Second question is have you tested this on common SATA drives?
>
> 3. are you using Linux iSCSI or other sharing methods like FTP, SAMBA
> etc. and if yes then how reliable iSCSI could be since i have a bit
> bad experience with openfiler and iSCSI connection with XP Clients. so
> i want to ask your opinion.
>
> 4. and the test results that you have shown are only tests or you are
> working on it in productions (you know reliability is also some thing
> that i need to know as i am going to be trying this in production)
>
> 5. would you please share some details of you SAN BOX
> like HARDWARE and OS level.

Let's take things one step at a time, please.

--
Stan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FE4219D.5090908@hardwarefreak.com">http://lists.debian.org/4FE4219D.5090908@hardwarefreak.com
 
Old 06-22-2012, 09:15 AM
Muhammad Yousuf Khan
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 2:22 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
>>>> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
>>>> with Jumbo frame?
>>>
>>> I don't use jumbo frames here because:
>>>
>>> 1. *Not all the desktop NICs support it
>>> 2. *No single host _needs_ maximum GbE throughput
>>> * *We don't do large single file transfers
>>> 3. *The servers can hit wire speed doing parallel xfers
>>> * *without using jumbo frames
>>> 4. *My SAN is fibre channel
>>>
>>> I have done testing with GbE and 9000 byte frames and the information I
>
>
>> With reference to the Bruno point. he says it could be the bottleneck
>> on HD end regardless of what size of ram or Processor are we using. so
>> my question is have you tested
>> this on RAID 1?
>
> Before you even progress to the things below, you must run iperf to
> obtain a maximum baseline performance. *That is the measure of your TCP
> transmit/receive throughout. *Then you know what you target maximum is
> when you tune these other things.
>

ok, i'll be back with the results. shortly


>> *as i believe read right will highly effect the performance,
>>
>> Second question is have you tested this on common SATA drives?
>>
>> 3. are you using Linux iSCSI or other sharing methods like FTP, SAMBA
>> etc. and if yes then how reliable iSCSI could be since i have a bit
>> bad experience with openfiler and iSCSI connection with XP Clients. so
>> i want to ask your opinion.
>>
>> 4. and the test results that you have shown are only tests or you are
>> working on it in productions (you know reliability is also some thing
>> that i need to know as i am going to be trying this in production)
>>
>> 5. would you please share some details of you SAN BOX
>> * *like HARDWARE and OS level.
>
> Let's take things one step at a time, please.
>
> --
> Stan
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAGWVfMmcMb=K0u_Q2UpoSm+jU1SPOBnvhcWDX2rqcX5PkW0hg g@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-22-2012, 10:45 AM
Muhammad Yousuf Khan
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 2:22 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
>>>> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
>>>> with Jumbo frame?
>>>
>>> I don't use jumbo frames here because:
>>>
>>> 1. *Not all the desktop NICs support it
>>> 2. *No single host _needs_ maximum GbE throughput
>>> * *We don't do large single file transfers
>>> 3. *The servers can hit wire speed doing parallel xfers
>>> * *without using jumbo frames
>>> 4. *My SAN is fibre channel
>>>
>>> I have done testing with GbE and 9000 byte frames and the information I
>
>
>> With reference to the Bruno point. he says it could be the bottleneck
>> on HD end regardless of what size of ram or Processor are we using. so
>> my question is have you tested
>> this on RAID 1?
>
> Before you even progress to the things below, you must run iperf to
> obtain a maximum baseline performance. *That is the measure of your TCP
> transmit/receive throughout. *Then you know what you target maximum is
> when you tune these other things.

ok here you go with the details

this is the storage server NAS/SAN box

root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -r
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.X.X.7, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 65.2 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 5] local 10.X.X.15 port 33819 connected with 10.X.X.7 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 744 MBytes 624 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.X.X.15 port 5001 connected with 10.X.X.7 port 59971
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 876 MBytes 734 Mbits/sec

and here you go with my Virtualization Server based on lenny Qemu KVM

lion:/mnt/vmbk# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 10.X.X.7 port 5001 connected with 10.X.X.15 port 33819
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 744 MBytes 623 Mbits/sec
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.X.X.15, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 539 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 10.X.X.7 port 59971 connected with 10.X.X.15 port 5001
Waiting for server threads to complete. Interrupt again to force quit.
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 876 MBytes 735 Mbits/sec


>
>> *as i believe read right will highly effect the performance,
>>
>> Second question is have you tested this on common SATA drives?
>>
>> 3. are you using Linux iSCSI or other sharing methods like FTP, SAMBA
>> etc. and if yes then how reliable iSCSI could be since i have a bit
>> bad experience with openfiler and iSCSI connection with XP Clients. so
>> i want to ask your opinion.
>>
>> 4. and the test results that you have shown are only tests or you are
>> working on it in productions (you know reliability is also some thing
>> that i need to know as i am going to be trying this in production)
>>
>> 5. would you please share some details of you SAN BOX
>> * *like HARDWARE and OS level.
>
> Let's take things one step at a time, please.
>
> --
> Stan
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAGWVfM=TyU9ZY+UQcX5xuK-h=9Oo_HdD_OOiW2u7yzE9gVYcfg@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-22-2012, 10:49 AM
Bartek Krawczyk
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

2012/6/22 Muhammad Yousuf Khan <sirtcp@gmail.com>:
> ok here you go with the details
>
> this is the storage server NAS/SAN box
>
> root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -r
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Server listening on TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Client connecting to 10.X.X.7, TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 65.2 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [ *5] local 10.X.X.15 port 33819 connected with 10.X.X.7 port 5001
> [ ID] Interval * * * Transfer * * Bandwidth
> [ *5] *0.0-10.0 sec * 744 MBytes * 624 Mbits/sec
> [ *4] local 10.X.X.15 port 5001 connected with 10.X.X.7 port 59971
> [ *4] *0.0-10.0 sec * 876 MBytes * 734 Mbits/sec
>
> and here you go with my Virtualization Server based on lenny Qemu KVM
>
> lion:/mnt/vmbk# iperf -s
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Server listening on TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [ *4] local 10.X.X.7 port 5001 connected with 10.X.X.15 port 33819
> [ ID] Interval * * * Transfer * * Bandwidth
> [ *4] *0.0-10.0 sec * *744 MBytes * *623 Mbits/sec
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Client connecting to 10.X.X.15, TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: * 539 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [ *4] local 10.X.X.7 port 59971 connected with 10.X.X.15 port 5001
> Waiting for server threads to complete. Interrupt again to force quit.
> [ *4] *0.0-10.0 sec * *876 MBytes * *735 Mbits/sec

Try using -u or f.i. -w 2M with TCP.
But your results are quite good already.

Regards,
--
Bartek Krawczyk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAFp_H4v1DJM_i80T45AFauPQRxw5V2CX+HyBGqraT414VBzv-w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAFp_H4v1DJM_i80T45AFauPQRxw5V2CX+HyBGqraT414VBzv-w@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-22-2012, 11:37 AM
Muhammad Yousuf Khan
 
Default how to increase through put of LAN to 1GB

> Try using -u or f.i. -w 2M with TCP.
> But your results are quite good already.

UDP only

root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -u -r
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on UDP port 5001
Receiving 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 110 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.X.X.7, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 110 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 10.X.X.15 port 34677 connected with 10.X.X.7 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec
[ 4] Sent 893 datagrams
[ 4] Server Report:
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec 0.028 ms 0/ 893 (0%)
[ 3] local 10.X.X.15 port 5001 connected with 10.X.X.7 port 44331
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec 0.002 ms 0/ 893 (0%)



lion:/mnt/vmbk# iperf -s -u
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on UDP port 5001
Receiving 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 130 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 10.X.X.7 port 5001 connected with 10.X.X.15 port 34677
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec 0.028 ms 0/ 893 (0%)
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.X.X.15, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 130 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 10.X.X.7 port 44331 connected with 10.X.X.15 port 5001
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec
[ 3] Sent 893 datagrams
[ 3] Server Report:
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec 0.001 ms 0/ 893 (0%)

>
> Regards,
> --
> Bartek Krawczyk
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAGWVfMnO36dEFrCNm=bxc6rMYT1VUE+uvAUS=bRbRFgcOQLmv A@mail.gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org