perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: Brian Candler <>
- To: Aaron Brown <>
- Cc: "" <>
- Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:35:03 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WC/d89 kk+e2XXVGJYqgrtF9bjWeUeyJM4sOOyzGM2aRe34D/ld8P5+bU/2wTg5Jqe62vVn bHiO/zdXM6igd+CTtjDt5YocJDsdUu0/meMeIJj6EQ7BdjuNlyT04POSBuYymQdf yQSa9c3Y2ABhcy1yNNnMrL6fbbcQNl93t9Fv0=
On 05/12/2014 13:25, Brian Candler wrote:
With -s and debug flags:Re-running this with
$ bwctl -v -x -s cov-perf-1 -T iperf3
strace -f -p <pid-of-bwctld> 2>/var/tmp/z
also active on both sides, I *did* get results. It looks like there's some sort of race condition; or else "interrupt" in the previous test results implies an EINTR which isn't being handled properly.
$ bwctl -v -x -s cov-perf-1 -T iperf3
Messages being sent to syslog(user,err)
bwctl: Using cov-perf-1 as the address for remote sender
bwctl: Using 192.0.2.251 as the address for local receiver
bwctl: Available in-common: iperf nuttcp iperf3
bwctl: Using tool: iperf3
bwctl: Server 'localhost' accepted test request at time 1417786177.303107
bwctl: Client 'cov-perf-1' accepted test request at time 1417786177.303107
bwctl: 18 seconds until test results available
RECEIVER START
bwctl: start_endpoint: 3626774970.236119
bwctl: run_endpoint: receiver: 192.0.2.251
bwctl: run_endpoint: sender: 192.0.2.254
bwctl: run_tool: tester: iperf3
bwctl: run_tool: receiver: 192.0.2.251
bwctl: run_tool: sender: 192.0.2.254
bwctl: start_tool: 3626774974.264444
iperf 3.0.9
Linux bou-perf-1.network.example.com 2.6.32-504.1.3.el6.aufs.web100.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Nov 12 16:01:48 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5003
-----------------------------------------------------------
Time: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:29:37 GMT
Accepted connection from 192.0.2.254, port 39854
Cookie: cov-perf-1.network.example.com.141
TCP MSS: 1448 (default)
[ 17] local 192.0.2.251 port 5003 connected to 192.0.2.254 port 42261
Starting Test: protocol: TCP, 1 streams, 131072 byte blocks, omitting 0 seconds, 10 second test
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 17] 0.00-1.00 sec 425 MBytes 3.56 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 1.00-2.00 sec 501 MBytes 4.20 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 2.00-3.00 sec 516 MBytes 4.33 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 3.00-4.00 sec 716 MBytes 6.00 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 4.00-5.00 sec 695 MBytes 5.83 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 5.00-6.00 sec 738 MBytes 6.19 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 6.00-7.00 sec 739 MBytes 6.20 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 7.00-8.00 sec 832 MBytes 6.98 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 8.00-9.00 sec 872 MBytes 7.32 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 9.00-10.00 sec 750 MBytes 6.29 Gbits/sec
[ 17] 10.00-10.03 sec 26.6 MBytes 7.01 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 17] 0.00-10.03 sec 6.67 GBytes 5.71 Gbits/sec 0 sender
[ 17] 0.00-10.03 sec 6.65 GBytes 5.69 Gbits/sec receiver
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 57.2% (0.4%u/56.9%s), remote/sender 71.3% (0.1%u/71.3%s)
bwctl: stop_tool: 3626774987.537582
bwctl: stop_endpoint: 3626774988.559571
RECEIVER END
SENDER START
bwctl: start_endpoint: 3626774970.191665
bwctl: run_endpoint: receiver: 192.0.2.251
bwctl: run_endpoint: sender: 192.0.2.254
bwctl: run_tool: tester: iperf3
bwctl: run_tool: receiver: 192.0.2.251
bwctl: run_tool: sender: 192.0.2.254
bwctl: start_tool: 3626774977.303588
iperf 3.0.9
Linux cov-perf-1.network.example.com 2.6.32-504.1.3.el6.aufs.web100.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Nov 12 16:01:48 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Time: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:29:37 GMT
Connecting to host 192.0.2.251, port 5003
Cookie: cov-perf-1.network.example.com.141
TCP MSS: 1448 (default)
[ 16] local 192.0.2.254 port 42261 connected to 192.0.2.251 port 5003
Starting Test: protocol: TCP, 1 streams, 131072 byte blocks, omitting 0 seconds, 10 second test
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 16] 0.00-1.00 sec 442 MBytes 3.70 Gbits/sec 0 370 KBytes
[ 16] 1.00-2.00 sec 508 MBytes 4.27 Gbits/sec 0 437 KBytes
[ 16] 2.00-3.00 sec 508 MBytes 4.25 Gbits/sec 0 440 KBytes
[ 16] 3.00-4.00 sec 737 MBytes 6.19 Gbits/sec 0 2.98 MBytes
[ 16] 4.00-5.00 sec 684 MBytes 5.73 Gbits/sec 0 3.11 MBytes
[ 16] 5.00-6.00 sec 752 MBytes 6.32 Gbits/sec 0 3.20 MBytes
[ 16] 6.00-7.00 sec 719 MBytes 6.03 Gbits/sec 0 3.34 MBytes
[ 16] 7.00-8.00 sec 836 MBytes 7.01 Gbits/sec 0 3.49 MBytes
[ 16] 8.00-9.00 sec 880 MBytes 7.39 Gbits/sec 0 3.62 MBytes
[ 16] 9.00-10.00 sec 760 MBytes 6.37 Gbits/sec 0 3.67 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 16] 0.00-10.00 sec 6.67 GBytes 5.73 Gbits/sec 0 sender
[ 16] 0.00-10.00 sec 6.65 GBytes 5.71 Gbits/sec receiver
CPU Utilization: local/sender 71.3% (0.1%u/71.3%s), remote/receiver 57.2% (0.4%u/56.9%s)
iperf Done.
bwctl: stop_tool: 3626774987.491282
bwctl: stop_endpoint: 3626774988.512286
SENDER END
(This is still lower performance than native iperf3, but there's an overhead of an strace as well now)
Regards,
Brian.
- [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Tierney, 12/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Aaron Brown, 12/05/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/05/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/05/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/05/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/06/2014
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Tim Rayner, 12/06/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/07/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/07/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Aaron Brown, 12/09/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/09/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/09/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Aaron Brown, 12/10/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/10/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/07/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/07/2014
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Tim Rayner, 12/06/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/06/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Candler, 12/05/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3, Brian Tierney, 12/04/2014
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.