Bandwidth inconsistent
- To: iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
- Subject: Bandwidth inconsistent
- From: "spamnix bak" <spanixbrat --at-- gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:28:47 -0500
- Content-disposition: inline
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
- Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=cNoCTzBhPpmcIsImp/jFfSubI8fRrdVYfTuhn2CZ5tk=; b=BSSqBBJDpW3J66R1wNl4iBiqQ7UME3hJcHJ15W39wWDwkX87+/nUZf2v9y7MVW2de4vPgv/t/POiPFxxxDDufUbpBAau7hvsaE/kwRdhJuqcKmITlt5cqSB5uEGxteQANKmkz5jEC27cp9e8JJMGg72Tf5w1M8al+kBuIQ3jX/E=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=UHUwtn00SOkczLM7qz2n8GfGbpSla615r6sXMEA2y1rS6Mx3zJx6YNjniBGgH9ERSj0PUK04TybKeOE1YO9o74d9s3RCRcT/FS7qa9PS1kJ0q1JpJnuisBch00XeHTNvDtqi+6GZyrDn8xEsX1wiOwiW9Qx63/Z6dbR1WIeufKI=
- Reply-to: iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
- Sender: owner-iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
I am examining the throughput I can get between my server and a client
over 85ms RTT. I am seeing different bandwidth in the client 'iperf
output' from what the server is seeing.
To be more precise I am doing the following:
>server: iperf -s
and then
>client: iperf -c 'server ip'
(am not using dual test)
This is the output I am seeing:
@client: [ 3] local (client ip) port (port#) connected with (server
ip) port 5001
[ 3] 0.0-20.1 sec 359 MBytes 150 Mbits/sec
@server: [ 6] local (server ip) port (port#) connected with (NAT ip)
port (some port#)
[ 6] 0.0-63.1 sec 359 MBytes 47.7 Mbits/sec
Please observer the difference in bandwidth reported. Also the server
is connected to the NAT router, could this be the reason why this
connection is seeing less bandwidth, (maybe because of the overhead of
mapping it to local ip).
any information regarding this would be good.
-Nishesh Bakshi
Akamai Technologies