Re: Iperf max b/w

To: Cameron Harr <charr --at-- lnxi.com>
Subject: Re: Iperf max b/w
From: Tony Rimovsky <tony --at-- ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:50:10 -0500
Cc: iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
Content-disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
In-reply-to: <3F86C3FA.9090601 --at-- lnxi.com>
References: <3F86BF7E.6000501 --at-- lnxi.com><2147483647.1065778299 --at-- [192.168.1.102]> <3F86C3FA.9090601 --at-- lnxi.com>
Reply-to: iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net
Sender: owner-iperf-users --at-- dast.nlanr.net

there could be several host bottlenecks:
  1.  pci bus speed.
  2.  other host activity.
  3.  frame size and io/cpu utilization
  4.  tcp implimentation problems





--On Friday, October 10, 2003 8:36 AM -0600 Cameron Harr <charr --at-- lnxi.com> 
wrote:

> Tony Rimovsky wrote:
>
>> It may be a host limitation.  We've seen iperf perform faster than that
>> (990 Mbps) on high latency gigabit paths with larger windows.
>
> Ok. For my aid, when you say host, are you thinking PCI-X bridge to Gig-E
> nic (hardware)?
>
> --
> Cameron Harr
> Systems Engineer
> Linux Networx Inc
> http://www.lnxi.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Iperf max b/w
  - From: Matthew J Zekauskas

References:
- Iperf max b/w
  - From: Cameron Harr
- Re: Iperf max b/w
  - From: Tony Rimovsky

Prev by Date: Re: Iperf max b/w
Next by Date: RE: Iperf max b/w
Previous by thread: Re: Iperf max b/w
Next by thread: Re: Iperf max b/w

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