Also, this would only be on the client. Iperf 2.0.14 supports both write
and read rate limiting via -b on the server as well as client.  Sweeps
wouldn't be supported by the server (or on the read side.)

Any issue with that, or, is there a read size need as well?

Bob

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:29 AM Craig Reeves <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Bob,
>
> Thanks, we'd be more than happy to test it out.  Just let me know and I'll
> get my engineering group to check it out.
>
> Craig Reeves
>
> "Bridging Communications"
> 3520 Lorna Ridge Drive
> Hoover, AL 35216
> v.(205) 829-1800
> f. (205) 536-6333
> c. (205) 332-5916
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:21 PM Bob McMahon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Any reason you need iperf 3 for this and can't use iperf 2.0.14?
>>
>> We are in the process of early field test for iperf 2.0.14.
>> <https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/>  This is probably an
>> experimental feature that could be added last minute.  We'd need you to
>> test if willing. Our goal is to release 2.0.14 early 2021.
>>
>> We're out of short options and would need to use long options. Maybe
>> something like
>>
>> --sweep-range=1m,100m, 1m (start, final, step size) defaults to 1m,10m,1m
>> with just --sweep-range
>> --sweep-steptime 1.5 (units of seconds) defaults to 1 second if
>> --sweep-range and no --sweep-steptime
>>
>> Note that --sweep-range has optional arguments (per the =) and
>> sweep-steptime has a mandatory argument (if used.)
>>
>> All, do comment on more intuitive command line options.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:12 AM Craig Reeves <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> First, many thanks for putting this tool together and sharing it.  It
>>> has proved invaluable over the years when dealing with ISPs.
>>>
>>> That being said, we regularly encounter ISPs that don't think their
>>> network has issues.  Most of the time we can pinpoint to a switch or
>>> connection that is over saturated.
>>>
>>> I would love to see a feature that allowed us to set a starting
>>> throughput, incremental step up/down throughput, and interval.  This would
>>> help find the point at which issues begin.  Here is the idea:
>>>
>>> iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 -bt 1M -et 10M -st 10s -t 100 -u
>>>
>>> -bt = beginning throughput
>>> -et = ending throughput
>>> -st = step up/down time
>>>
>>> The thinking is that iperf3 would start a test (UDP or TCP) at 1Mb/s
>>> throughput, and then ramp up in 1Mb/s steps ever 10 seconds.
>>>
>>> This eliminates the need to do individual runs with different settings.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Craig Reeves
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iperf-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
>>>
>>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Iperf-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users

Reply via email to