The flows code is likely broken at the moment. I've been focussed on iperf 2.0.14 itself.
The basic requirement is ssh access to both ends used to create a flow via a python interpreter running 3.5 or greater (per the use of python's asyncio <https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio.html>.) The iperf hosts don't need to run python just ssh pipes and have a local iperf binary. Async or event based programming <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_programming> is a bit more challenging than procedural based so keep that in mind. Simple traffic is easy as it's just installations of flows then flow commence and flow cease <https://sourceforge.net/p/iperf2/code/ci/master/tree/flows/flows.py> which are class methods. (Note: flows is in the experimental state too.) The data is put into a dictionary. The outputs are basically a csv file but that's a pain. So one would probably want to integrate output logic into a python script itself that imports the flows and ssh modules. There is an example with computing a Kolmogorov smirnov table which is used to cluster lots of latency distributions. These distributions can be non-parametric so the KS distance is a good choice for a distance matrix - though not the only one. We'll run thousands of tests and want to cluster results. Bob On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:58 PM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> wrote: > Bob, > > I am good with write side only since we can flip the ends (we normally > have access to both ends we are using for testing). > > I am a python newbie, but I will take your advice and look at it. I was > not aware of the pyflows module. > > > > Thanks, > > 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 2:54 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> > wrote: > >> This doesn't seem to require read side rate limiting. I think write side >> would do it. The full-duplex may be useful too. Then debug options are >> like: >> >> - iperf -c <customer host> --full-duplex -u --sweep-range=1m,10m,1m >> --sweep-step 10 -i 1 -l 200 -S 0xc0 >> - iperf -c <customer host> --reverse -u --sweep-range=1m,10m,1m >> --sweep-step 10 -i 1 -l 200 -S 0xc0 >> - iperf -c <customer host> --u --sweep-range=1m,10m,1m --sweep-step >> 10 -i 1 -l 200 -S 0xc0 >> >> which should cover the to/fro directions as well as full duplex (as well >> as set the access class to VOIP priority.) >> >> If you can get clock sync then --trip-times might be useful too. Man >> page here <https://iperf2.sourceforge.io/iperf-manpage.html> >> >> I'd suggest writing a python script using pyflows >> <https://sourceforge.net/p/iperf2/code/ci/master/tree/flows/> if you >> need the full duplex case to be synchronized before each step or for >> triangulated flows (iperf 2.0.14 does support --incr-dstip with -P but I >> doubt this will work for your triangulation needs.) Using a python script, >> one can then just use iperf and add the new features via python code. >> >> Note: Adding step sync over UDP with iperf isn't trivial - too much >> handshaking required. It may require a control socket similar to iperf 3. >> We've purposely tried to avoid a TCP socket for UDP tests in iperf 2 so >> it's not something we'd want to do. >> >> The question becomes, should this all be a python script using flows or >> is there enough value add in having iperf do it itself with the knowledge >> there won't be any step synchronization? I see value to the sweep and step >> when hunting near congestion vs congestion (buffer bloat) so I'll probably >> add that to iperf itself. >> >> Bob >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:25 PM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Bob, >>> >>> Good question. So here is a typical scenario. We have a VOIP server >>> sitting inside of a customer's data center behind a firewall (e.g. >>> Sonicwall, PfSense, Palo Alto, etc.). The phone server is sitting on a >>> VLAN inside the customer's network and has a 1Gb NIC. The customer (most >>> of ours are very large) has a 200Mb Internet pipe from an ISP. Depending >>> on the concurrent call volume we ask the customer to do traffic shaping and >>> guarantee us 10Mb of the 200Mb pipe. They call after working fine for 2 >>> years and complain that they can't hear outside callers (UDP traffic from >>> the carrier into the VOIP server is being disrupted). We will run iperf >>> tests from an external location (like on our VM setup at our office, or a >>> VM we have on AWS) and start shooting UDP packets in (usually starting at >>> 1Mb with a small datagram and working our way up to the 10Mb limit). Most >>> of the time we start seeing issues with dropped packets at 3Mb/s. This >>> then forces us to look at the Firewall and see if it is overwhelmed doing >>> the shaping. If not then we setup a "triangulation" where we do iperf >>> tests with 2 separate external sources and see the times when both pipes >>> show dropped packets. If we see consistent drops from 2 separate legs this >>> invariable points to an upstream problem at the ISP. >>> >>> Hope that helps, >>> >>> 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 2:08 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For UDP, are you expecting the sweep applies both to client and server >>>> at the same time? I guess I'm confused about UDP read size rate limiting. >>>> If the client applies 100m and the server is read limited per a sweep there >>>> is going to be drops. UDP doesn't flow control the client. >>>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM Craig Reeves <craigree...@ambit-llc.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, but the percentage of drops is fairly low in a clean network pipe. >>>>> >>>>> 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 1:39 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ok, read side limiting would trigger source flow control for TCP and >>>>>> cause drops per UDP. Is that what you'd expect? >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Craig Reeves < >>>>>> craigree...@ambit-llc.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bob, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we would need the Read side as well. Sometimes we see packets >>>>>>> drop from a single direction (that is actually very common). >>>>>>> Technically >>>>>>> we could just flip the roles of the 2 ends so it isn't critical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 1:32 PM Bob McMahon <bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>> craigree...@ambit-llc.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>> bob.mcma...@broadcom.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>>> craigree...@ambit-llc.com> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Iperf-users mailing list Iperf-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iperf-users
