If memory serves me right, Jeffrey Lane wrote: > Hi all, > > I have what is kind of a silly question, but who has some experience > testing 100Gb with iperf3? > > I just wanted to validate something with iperf3 to see if it is reasonable. > > With a single process running, the most I've been able to get out of a > 100Gb network port is a burst of about 65Gb/s with sustained averages > of around 50-55Gb/s. > > This is after a LOT of kernel tweaks, PCIe tweaks, and network config tweaks. > > So at this point, I'm thinking that what I'm seeing is a hardware > bottleneck, since iperf3 isn't multi-threaded. > > What I wanted to validate, to get around that is this: > > On the target side, I've kicked off four iperf3 processes all bound to > the same IP but listening on a different port. Now, on the client > side, I kick off four iperf3 instances, one per remote port. After 30 > minutes of testing, each instance returns an average throughput of > about 23Gb/s. > > So in that scenario is it reasonable that 4 parallel threads reporting > 23Gb/s can be aggregated to assume we're actually seeing throughput of > 92Gb/s on the 100Gb port (thus nearly saturated)?
That all seems reasonable. We have some experience with iperf3 in very high speed links, and yes, there's some amount of tuning that might be involved. https://fasterdata.es.net/ has some information on tuning hardware and software. Note that the reported throughput is application-level throughput (payload only) and doesn't include protocol overheads. Bruce.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Iperf-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
