perfsonar-user - RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: "Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA)" <>
- To: Szymon Trocha <>
- Cc: "" <>
- Subject: RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:53:44 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
I will look into the host tuning more. I just didn't want to lock myself out of the testpoint gear and have to take a nice, long, relaxing drive away from the office to fix it ;)
I was able to run a bwctl command that when I told it to use iperf3 and to run 20 parallel processes and that got us up to 288Mbps. I just know with some of our time warner links, when we test, we seem to be limited to how big each flow can be. When we
test back to our same iperf gear here (and the other way around) on some of our Time Warner fiber circuits, they always let a single stream go to it's full potential. I will surely try these host tuning settings and get back with you. It's rather frustrating
when link testing...
Thank you,
Robert Rittenhouse From: [] on behalf of Szymon Trocha []
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 3:47 AM To: Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA) Cc: Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test W dniu 26.01.2016 o 19:01, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA) pisze:
Hi Robert, There are many factors which may limit your throughput. Are there any network segments and network devices between the two systems? Is there any concurrent traffic on the links between the two systems? Did you look at http://docs.perfsonar.net/manage_tuning.html for host tuning? Regards, -- Szymon Trocha Poznań Supercomputing & Netw. Center ::: NETWORK OPERATION CENTER Tel. +48 618582022 ::: http://noc.man.poznan.pl PLEASE NOTE: This message and any response to it may constitute a public record, and therefore may be available upon request in accordance with Ohio public records law. (ORC 149.43) This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, employee, or agent responsible for delivering this message, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original e-mail message. |
- [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA), 01/26/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Szymon Trocha, 01/27/2016
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA), 01/27/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Brian Tierney, 01/27/2016
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA), 01/27/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Dale W. Carder, 01/27/2016
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA), 01/28/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Brian Tierney, 01/28/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Szymon Trocha, 01/28/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Dale W. Carder, 01/27/2016
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA), 01/27/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Brian Tierney, 01/27/2016
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Rittenhouse, Robert (LACA), 01/27/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Forcing parallel flows for Throughput test, Szymon Trocha, 01/27/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.