[c-nsp] IPerf alternative

[Raymond Burkholder]

> On 7 Aug 2017, at 04:25, CiscoNSP List <CiscoNSP_list at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Looking for an alternative to IPerf for link testing - Having some "reliability" concerns with IPerf results (Primarily with

can you explain your ‘reliability’ concerns?

> simultaneous data transfers) - Any recommendations are greatly appreciated (10G capabilities would be fantastic, but not

do you run a single iperf app, or several in parallel?  do you use the tcp mode or the udp mode?  in udp mode, you get some additional statistics.  on which platform do you run iperf?  on some platforms, like linux, you need to check ‘ethtool -S’ to see if the  operating system is dropping packets (on tx or rx).  which may require some performance tuning of the network interfaces.

also, on a linux platform, the kernel guys use some trace tools, one of which will create one buffer, and copy it to the network interface, making a very effective high bandwidth tester, with some purporting to fill a 10g link.  I don’t have the name off the top of my head.

this being a cisco list, some cisco platforms have built in ttcp performance testers.

> 100% necessary) - Has anyone used/tried Ostinato ? Primarily after a tool that can provide load testing results (simultaneous bidirectional, one direction, and UDP/TCP are primary requirements...Happy to look at a commercial product/appliance if it ticks all the boxes, but not wanting to spend a fortune :)
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.