From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Renker Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:35:02 +0000 Subject: Re: iperf Message-Id: <200707201335.02745@strip-the-willow> List-Id: References: <5bc4c4570707171213v6eb89545y5970e471345cc3f8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5bc4c4570707171213v6eb89545y5970e471345cc3f8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org | OK. I've hacked my iperf version around a bit to get closer to Gerrit's. | | What I've done: | - ported more of his code over | -- renaming/shifting code | -- fix service code handling to allow network byte order and correct name | -- merged using -b option for DCCP (NB gives an error at end but seems | to be working OK) This is an error - you need to support the -b option on the server as well. The reason is that iperf, like ttcp, uses a kind of handshake to terminate datagram test runs. You didn't describe the error - was it something like `did not receive the last ack after 10 tries'? If yes then the code needs to support -b on the server as well. The bandwidth measurements are otherwise not accurate. | | Our code still differs a bit e.g. I don't support UDP Lite yet. Are these the only differences? If yes then I am all for combining one patch and uploading it to the description of regression testing. Over the time I have using -b (even if it does not solve the present problem with bandwidth) a very useful diagnosis tool, iperf at full speed generates a lot of noise.