Re: UDP Packet Loss in Question
Hi Barry.
In "src/Client.cpp" from Iperf V. 2.0.2 it looks like that the last packet ID
that is reported in the output has been reorted to the server and not what is
really the last packet ID. This could result in untrue "datagrams out-of-order"
messages, we belief, but their number is very limited. But I do not know if this
was also an issue at V. 1.7.0. Possible this was not the case.
Regards,
Hans
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:04:41PM -0230, Carew, Barry wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am seeing a discrepancy in packet counters on IPERF 1.7.0 and on Wire
> Shark, which I think is packet loss numbers. First I am running IPERF
> 1.7.0 on two Win2K3 server boxes, separated by an MPLS network. I run
> IPERF client on one box and IPERF server (both in UDP mode) and send for
> about half an hour @ 2.5M using 1400 byte packet size (the network
> allows 3M and the MTU is 1500). The conclusion of one of my tests is
> below:
>
>
>
> [1924] 0.0-1799.9 sec 536 MBytes 2.50 Mbits/sec 8.214 ms
> 61/413505 (0.015%)
>
>
>
> If I count the number of packets sent by the client and received by the
> server using Wire Shark (with a filter to look at just UDP packets sent
> to port 5001 at size 1400 bytes) I see 413505 packets on the sending
> side and 413502 on the receiving side.
>
>
>
> I have also set up some packet debug on the routers that these two
> servers connect to and looked at the total number of packets sent and
> received at each side - these numbers always match Wire Sharks numbers.
> So it doesn't look like I'm actually losing the packet, is it because
> IPERF is looking at something else? I use the default buffer size of 8K
> for the server side of UDP; perhaps I should try increasing that.
>
>
>
> Has anybody seen anything similar in the past? Any comments welcomed!!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Barry
>
>
>
> The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and subject to the Confidentiality Notice at http://www.stratosglobal.com/email-privacy.html
>
>
>