Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3

Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

List archive

Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Brian Candler <>
  • To: Aaron Brown <>
  • Cc: Tim Rayner <>, "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Different results from iperf3 vs. bwctl -T iperf3
  • Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:34:10 +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=ih/AZg TbLcSmOcZVqSzG4lzOzs4tXudocDNPBvq6lzbzc8vBnPYO9Zmzb0ljPJ8bUDhw0/ OoY6QCPmkRdXwf2nhXT+glbB4qy8w/H+LaWgp0Vk9a7B/O61DrHtSsOB7aE//zo3 fUh6YFiHJbE+c9rRw4ZCWeoj/u+Rz7qJk8M+s=
On 09/12/2014 15:37, Aaron Brown wrote:
As to the empty tests, it looks like the client is hanging on the connect. My
initial thought is that this is either a firewall or network issue that’s
preventing the connect from succeeding.
These machines are connected back-to-back with an SFP+ direct-attach cable.

> How long does it take before it spits back an error?

I think it came back in a few seconds - quicker than the 15 seconds I was expecting for a working test. Unfortunately, just to spite me, it is working right now :-(

Regards,

Brian.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page