On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:50:26PM +0300, Kapeatanakis Giannis wrote: > On 05/08/12 00:13, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > >to elaborate on this point a bit: please make sure you understand > >what you're testing! tcpbench and iperf both test how fast your > >tcp or udp server running in userland can receive and transmit > >information through the socket interface. this has nothing to do > >with router workloads for example. > >>Yes, we would like to be faster but to get more speed large changes are > >>needed since currently only one CPU is doing all the work in the kernel. > >> > >>-- > >>:wq Claudio > > Well if the OpenBSD is in the middle of two other machines like B in A-B-C > and you do iperf/tcpbench between A and C then it is a valid test > for router workloads, isn't it? >
Depends. tcpbench and iperf do not emulate real traffic. In most cases they will run a very limited number of sessions/flows. In the end you need to know if your profiling run does measure the right things. At least the tcpbench workload (tcp session in one direction) produce a not so common network pattern. iperf has a similar issue but comes with more buttons. In short tcpbench and iperf can give you an indication how a router behaves in your A-B-C test. -- :wq Claudio
