A further question on using the -l option

To: iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
Subject: A further question on using the -l option
From: Jim Mozley <jim.mozley --at-- exponential-e.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:29:57 +0100
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Organization: Exponential-e
Reply-to: iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
Sender: owner-iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616)

A further question on using the -l option.

If I use the command below (on a 100 Mb/s link):

iperf -u -c 172.18.1.1 -b 90m -t 300 -l 100B

After a time I see the following from the server output:

[  6] 154.0-155.0 sec  7.01 MBytes  58.8 Mbits/sec  0.013 ms 
46088/119609 (39%)
[  6] 155.0-156.0 sec  7.00 MBytes  58.7 Mbits/sec  0.018 ms 
43404/116817 (37%)
[  6] 156.0-157.0 sec  6.31 MBytes  52.9 Mbits/sec  0.016 ms    0/66157 (0%)
[  6] 157.0-158.0 sec  6.33 MBytes  53.1 Mbits/sec  0.017 ms    0/66423 (0%)

The number of datagrams/s seems to lower and packets stop being dropped 
or at least only a few get lost. The time to reach this point seems to 
vary but it appears to be consistent behaviour if I repeat the test. Is 
there any reason why the Iperf client would start to send fewer packets, 
as this is what appears to happen, or am I mistaken about what is happening?

Thanks,

Jim Mozley

Follow-Ups:
- Re: A further question on using the -l option
  - From: Marcelo Maraboli

Prev by Date: UDP Connection tuning questions regarding the -b and -l options
Next by Date: Re: wire rate vs UDP throughput
Previous by thread: UDP Connection tuning questions regarding the -b and -l options
Next by thread: Re: A further question on using the -l option

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index