perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[Hervey Allen <>]

On 2/10/16 8:14 AM, Manglos, Andrew P (173E) wrote:
> Hervey,
> 
> Thank you. This was exactly what I was looking for! Did you buy the below 
> mentioned hardware from a specific reseller or individually from different 
> sources?
> 

Hello Andrew,
        My pleasure. We bought our i7 NUC at Amazon. I use the Intel NUC
comparison page here:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-comparison.html

Then we looked online and the Amazon prices were close enough for one.
The i7 model we bought was:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WAS1FX6?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s01

I'm not sure where we got the i5 model. We bought the Samsung Pro 850
drives and Corsair RAM from Amazon (largely because we have a business
account there already set up and we get prime shipping, so it's simple,
fast and prices are very close to everyone else in this case):

RAM:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EXPNG5Y?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00

Disk:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LF10KTO?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s01

It's worth looking around Amazon as others may sell the same product
with same shipping times for less (prices move around).

G'luck :-)

Cheers,
        - Hervey




> 
> -Andrew Manglos
>  Network Engineer
>  Work#: 818-393-2419 (x32419)
>  Cell#: 626-710-2092
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> 
>  
> [mailto:]
>  On Behalf Of Hervey Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 10:55 PM
> To: 
> 
> Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Low Cost Hardware-Intel Nuc
> 
> On 2/9/16 8:06 PM, John W. O'Brien wrote:
>> On 2/9/16 5:59 PM, Manglos, Andrew P (173E) wrote:
>>> I was wondering if anyone has used an Intel Nuc for iperf testing? I 
>>> noticed that it is mentioned on the low cost hardware page but did 
>>> not see any reference of testing on these devices.
>>
>> I have not, but I am the proud owner of multiple NUCs, and would be 
>> glad to give it a whirl. Are there test that are of specific interest to 
>> you?
>>
> 
> We have used both Intel NUC5i5RYH
> 
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc5i5ryh.html
> 
> and the Intel NUC5i7RYH
> 
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc5i7ryh.html
> 
> We use Samsung 850 Pro SSDs and 16GB of DDR3L 1600MHz PC3 12800 RAM.
> 
> With the 5th gen, i5-5250U processor we did local iPerf tests with the 
> on-board NIC and against another box that had a 10G NIC.
> 
> owping statistics between the two boxes looked like this:
> 
> --- owping statistics from [ps-test-02.nsrc.org]:8763 to
> [perfsonar.nsrc.org]:9800 ---
> SID: 80df9d2cd99dd0e22e633e7ecaa109b3
> first: 2015-09-11T22:14:59.294
> last: 2015-09-11T22:15:09.761
> 100 sent, 0 lost (0.000%), 0 duplicates
> one-way delay min/median/max = -20.3/-20/-19.4 ms, (err=16.8 ms) one-way 
> jitter = 0.5 ms (P95-P50) Hops = 1 (consistently) no reordering
> 
> and
> 
> --- owping statistics from [perfsonar.nsrc.org]:9839 to
> [ps-test-02.nsrc.org]:8796 ---
> SID: 80df5583d99dd0e23390f966b900cc27
> first: 2015-09-11T22:14:59.293
> last: 2015-09-11T22:15:10.884
> 100 sent, 0 lost (0.000%), 0 duplicates
> one-way delay min/median/max = 19.8/20.3/20.7 ms, (err=16.8 ms) one-way 
> jitter = 0.4 ms (P95-P50) Hops = 1 (consistently) no reordering
> 
> These were pretty typical test results fir bwctl (using iperf):
> 
> bwctl -c perfsonar.nsrc.org -t 30 -f m -i 1
> bwctl: Using tool: iperf
> bwctl: 36 seconds until test results available
> 
> RECEIVER START
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Server listening on TCP port 5061
> Binding to local address 128.223.157.44
> TCP window size: 0.08 MByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 15] local 128.223.157.44 port 5061 connected with 128.223.85.131 port
> 40890
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 15] 0.0- 1.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 1.0- 2.0 sec 109 MBytes 
> 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 2.0- 3.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 3.0- 4.0 
> sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 4.0- 5.0 sec 109 MBytes 913 Mbits/sec [ 
> 15] 5.0- 6.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 6.0- 7.0 sec 109 MBytes 914 
> Mbits/sec [ 15] 7.0- 8.0 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 8.0- 9.0 sec 
> 109 MBytes 913 Mbits/sec [ 15] 9.0-10.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 
> 10.0-11.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 11.0-12.0 sec 109 MBytes 913 
> Mbits/sec [ 15] 12.0-13.0 sec 109 MBytes 914 Mbits/sec [ 15] 13.0-14.0 sec 
> 109 MBytes 914 Mbits/sec [ 15] 14.0-15.0 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 
> 15.0-16.0 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 16.0-17.0 sec 109 MBytes 913 
> Mbits/sec [ 15] 17.0-18.0 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 18.0-19.0 sec 
> 106 MBytes 893 Mbits/sec [ 15] 19.0-20.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 
> 20.0-21.0 sec 109 MBytes 915 Mbits/sec [ 15] 21.0-22.0 sec 109 MBytes 917 
> Mbits/sec [ 15] 22.0-23.0 s
ec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 23.0-24.0 sec 109 MBytes 917 Mbits/sec [ 
15] 24.0-25.0 sec 109 MBytes 917 Mbits/sec [ 15] 25.0-26.0 sec 109 MBytes 918 
Mbits/sec [ 15] 26.0-27.0 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 27.0-28.0 sec 
109 MBytes 917 Mbits/sec [ 15] 28.0-29.0 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec [ 15] 
29.0-30.0 sec 109 MBytes 917 Mbits/sec [ 15] 0.0-30.0 sec 3272 MBytes 915 
Mbits/sec [ 15] MSS size 1448 bytes (MTU 1500 bytes, ethernet)
> 
> 
> We saw slightly better results when we connected 2 x NUCs back-to-back, but 
> I don't have those tests.
> 
> Bottom line - the 5th gen, i5, dual core model appears to sustain 
> 1Gbits/sec throughput levels using iperf.
> 
> I have not tested the less expensive 5th gen, i3 models. We have not tested 
> the i7 NUC we have yet. I'm assuming it would be as good, or better, but 
> that just an assumption.
> 
> Cheers,
>       - Hervey Allen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Hervey Allen      Assistant Director, Network Startup Resource Center

   http://nsrc.org/ : http://facebook.com/nsrc.org
GPG Fingerprint:  AC08 31CB E453 6C65 2AB3 4EDB CEEB 5A74 C6E5 624F