Search Results

Search found 8 results on 1 pages for 'netperf'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Not getting gigbit from a gigabit link?

  - by marcusw

  I just upgraded my LAN to gigabit. This is what netperf has to say about things. Before: marcus@lt:~$ netperf -H 192.168.1.1 TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : demo Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 16384 10.02 94.13 After: marcus@lt:~$ netperf -H 192.168.1.1 TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : demo Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 16384 10.01 339.15 Only 340 Mbps? What's up with that? Background info: I'm connecting through a gigabit switch to a sheevaplug. I have Cat5e wiring in the walls and the run is maybe 30 feet. If you're not familiar with netperf, it has a tendency to give very stable results and never lie.

  Read the article

• Very low throughput on 10GbE network

  - by aix

  I have two Linux machines, each equipped with a Solarflare SFN5122F 10GbE NIC. The two NICs are connected together with an SFP+ Direct Attach cable. I am using netperf to measure TCP throughput between the two machines. On one box, I run: netserver and on the other: netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H 192.168.x.x -- -m 32768 I get: MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.x.x (192.168.x.x) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 32768 10.02 1321.34 The measured throughput is 1.3Gb/s. This is 7.5x below the theoretical maximum, and only 30% faster than 1GbE. What steps can I take to troubleshoot this?

  Read the article

• 10 GigE interfaces limits single connection throughput to 1 Gb on a ProCurve 4208vl

  - by wazoox

  The setup is as follow : 3 Linux servers with Intel CX4 10 GigE controllers and an X-Serve with a Myricom 10 GigE CX4 controller are connected to a ProCurve 4208vl switch, with a myriad of other machines connected through good ol' 1000 base-T. The interfaces are actually set up as 10 Gig, according to both the switch monitoring interface and the servers (ethtool, etc). However a single connection between two 10 GigE equipped machines through the switch is limited to exactly 1Gb. If I connect two of the 10 GigE machines directly with a CX4 cable, netperf reports the link bandwidth as 9000 Mb/s. NFS achieves about 550 MB/s transfers. But when I'm using the switch, the connection tops at 950 Mb/s through netperf and 110 MB/s with NFS. When I open several connections from 3 of the machines to the 4th, I get 350 MB/s of NFS transfer speed. So each individual 10 GigE ports actually can reach much more than 1 Gb, but individual connections are strictly limited to 1 Gb. Conclusion : the 10 GigE connection through the switch behaves exactly like a trunk of 10 1 Gb connections. That doesn't make any sense to me, unless HP planned these ports only for cascading switches or strictly for many-clients-to-single-server connection. Unfortunately this is NOT the envisioned setup, we need big throughput from machine to machine. Is this a not-so-known (or carefully hidden...) limitation of this type of switch? Should I suggest seppuku to the HP representative? Does anyone have any idea on how to enable a proper behaviour ? I upgraded for an hefty price from bonded 1Gb links to 10 GigE and see exactly ZERO gain! That's absolutely unacceptable.

  Read the article

• How to measure TCP connection time in Linux

  - by Paul Draper

  I want to measure the overhead in creating a TCP connection. I know of many tools like hping and netperf, but they seem oriented at measuring latency. I want to know how long the 3-way handshake takes, and allocating any buffers, etc., and then closing it. So I want to open a real, legitimate TCP connection, and then close it. Are there any tools that will do that and help me measure performance?

  Read the article

• Connecting Windows XP to Windows 7 directly using cable

  - by TPR

  These are the problems I am encountering. XP can access Windows 7, not the other way around (which is fine, because I don't need it the other way currently) File transfer is too slow like 0.031 MB/s even though netperf and netCPS list around 8-9 MB/s. I disabled firewall on both computers. Both are same workgroup. I left homegroup on Windows 7. Windows 7 sees the connection as unidentified network. 10.1.1.2 (XP) and 10.1.1.1 (Windows 7) Subnet mask 255.255.255.0 Default gateway and DNS are empty for both of them. Both computer are connected to internet using wireless (using home network), and both of them are connected to each other using wire! If anybody has any pointers, do let me know. I have no problem doing such setup with both computers being Windows 7. This time one of them is XP though, and that seems to be the problem.

  Read the article

• Poor TCP loopback throughput on Windows

  - by Yodan Tauber

  I measured the throughput of a locally bound TCP socket connection on my computer (Intel Q9550, 64 GB RAM, Windows XP 64 bit) using iperf. I got dissatisfying results (around 1.6 Gbit/s) each time, no matter how I tweaked the TCP settings (buffer length, window size, max segment size, no delay). I got similar results when I tried netperf. Now, I understand (from sources like these) that the average throughput of a loopback connection should be around 5 Gbit/s. What could be the reasons for such poor performance?

  Read the article

• Website has become slower on a VPS, was much fast on a shared host. What's wrong?

  - by Arpit Tambi

  My shared host suspended my website stating system overload, so I moved my website to a VPS which has 4GB RAM. But for some reason the website has become very slow. This is the vmstat output - procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- -----cpu------ r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 1 0 0 3050500 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Here's the Apache Benchmark output for a STATIC html page I ran on the server itself - Benchmarking www.ask-oracle.com (be patient)...apr_poll: The timeout specified has expired (70007) Total of 20 requests completed Update: Server Config: List item Centos 5.6 4 cores cpu 4 GB RAM LAMP stack with APC Wordpress Only one website It takes almost double time to load now, same website was much fast on shared hosting. I know I need to tweak some settings but have no clue where to start from? I have already tried to optimize apache, mysql etc. Update 2: CPU usage is low, see uptime output: 11:09:02 up 7 days, 21:26, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.11, 0.09 Update 3: When I load any webpage, browser shows "Waiting" for a long time and then page loads quickly. So I suspect server can accept only limited connections and holds extra connections in a waiting state. How to check this? Update 4: Following is the output on executing netperf TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 16384 10.00 9615.40 [root@ip-118-139-177-244 j3ngn5ri6r01t3]# Here are the Apache MPM settings from httpd.conf, do they look okay? <IfModule worker.c> StartServers 5 MaxClients 100 MinSpareThreads 50 MaxSpareThreads 250 ThreadsPerChild 125 MaxRequestsPerChild 10000 ServerLimit 100 </IfModule>

  Read the article

• Slow Routing Over LAN (Wired)

  - by reverendj1

  I'm having issues with my router acting very slow (Adtran Netvanta 3458). We have two networks, let's call them A and B. When I run netperf from two servers on network A (no routing) I get speeds along the lines of 900 Mbps. Which makes sense, since we have all 1Gbps switches. When testing A to B (or vice-versa) I get speeds along the lines of 22Mbps. I have also tested connecting my laptop to the switchports on the router, and testing two servers on network A (no routing) and got speeds around 90 Mbps. Which makes sense since the switchports on the router are 100Mbps. Does anyone have any idea why routing would be so slow? We bought the router over a year ago, and we think it has been doing this since then, but we never actually tested it before. (network B isn't really used much, so we didn't notice much) We were implementing a site-to-site VPN and noticed it was ridiculously slow, so we started testing basic routing performance. I have ruled out cabling and router CPU/memory utilization. Adtran looked at my config, but didn't see anything wrong with it.

  Read the article

1