Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-user - [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit

Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

List archive

[perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jared Schlemmer <>
  • To:
  • Subject: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:40:46 -0400
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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

We just turned up a new network endpoint that connects to an existing
aggregation site via a 1gb AT&T VPLS connection and I’m seeing some
interesting performance results. The sites are Monterey Bay and Sunnyvale,
CA. Tests from Sunnyvale to Monterey Bay are good, but the reverse direction,
Monterey Bay toward Sunnyvale, I see this:

Connecting to host port 5332
[ 16] local port 58534 connected to port 5332
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
[ 16] 0.00-1.00 sec 110 MBytes 0.92 Gbits/sec 0 1.16 MBytes
[ 16] 1.00-2.00 sec 113 MBytes 0.95 Gbits/sec 64 553 KBytes
[ 16] 2.00-3.00 sec 111 MBytes 0.93 Gbits/sec 32 498 KBytes
[ 16] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 434 KBytes
[ 16] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 362 KBytes
[ 16] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 0 669 KBytes
[ 16] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 622 KBytes
[ 16] 7.00-8.00 sec 111 MBytes 0.93 Gbits/sec 32 574 KBytes
[ 16] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 519 KBytes
[ 16] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 458 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 16] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 288 sender
[ 16] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 0.93 Gbits/sec receiver

My questions are, a) how is it that we see retries and such a small window
size and yet still get near line-rate throughput, and b) what is the real
world impact of a test like this? Users at the Monterey site are reporting
wildly varying performance out to the internet.

There are likely a lot of factors going on here, but I wanted to focus just
on the testing between these two sites through the AT&T cloud. Any insights,
theories or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks,


Jared Schlemmer
Network Engineer, GlobalNOC at Indiana University




Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page